Islam

[americanpride]

Every morning, Muhammad wakes and asks his wives, "Honey bunch - why does the calender still say 732?"

[zstuf]

Do you believe any of the history on Mohamed?

Most of his revelations or instructions from God were timely and advantageous for his political position and goals.

If not what do you believe about your religion, could the same be said for all religions?

Compare and contrast the following example of Islam and Christianity.

Islam:

Mohamed came down from a mountain one day after meditating in a cave and believed he was hearing a voice that explained all of the wonders and questions of the world. He believed this voice was a "God" that did not have a physical form.

Christianity:

Multiple writers of the Bible that received their instructions from a higher power.

Coincidence, or was Mohamed privy to Judaism and Christianity teachings and thus theories?

If you dismiss Islam and Mohamed out of hand, do you also weaken Christianity?


And by the way, I'm not Muslim nor Christian...........

[toejam]

...was Mohamed privy to Judaism and Christianity teachings and thus theories?

Uh, Ishamael was a son of Abraham, who was also the father of Issac, the guy who was almost sacrificed - you may remember him.

The Jews and the Arabs are literally half brothers under the skin, and Islam claims that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael.

Hell, I even say that the Arab-Israeli shit that is always going on is the world's longest family feud.

Mohammed certainly was privy to Hebrew teaching, and possibly Christianity as well.

If Mohammed turned out to be full of shit why would that weaken Christianity?

Guys, I think this is Minor History - only she could come up with an argument this lame.

[americanpride]

Mike,

It's not HM.

I recognize this poster's name from THC.

Though I'm not quite sure of his/her loyalties.

[zstuf]

americanpride said:

Mike,

It's not HM.

I recognize this poster's name from THC.

Though I'm not quite sure of his/her loyalties.

It's his, and I am a Desert Storm Vet........VII Corps TCAE

I question anything that has religion and war intertwined.......and religion and law as well.

These combinations make terrible bedfellows

Understanding that as a starting point would allow a reader to follow the logic of my view points.

[zstuf]

toejam said:

...was Mohamed privy to Judaism and Christianity teachings and thus theories?

Uh, Ishamael was a son of Abraham, who was also the father of Issac, the guy who was almost sacrificed - you may remember him.

The Jews and the Arabs are literally half brothers under the skin, and Islam claims that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael.

Hell, I even say that the Arab-Israeli shit that is always going on is the world's longest family feud.

Mohammed certainly was privy to Hebrew teaching, and possibly Christianity as well.

If Mohammed turned out to be full of shit why would that weaken Christianity?

Guys, I think this is Minor History - only she could come up with an argument this lame.

The point was that Mohammed probably learned about the story of Abraham through conversations with Hebrews as a merchant, and subsequently created the theory of the offspring creating 3 races, rather than 2 that believed in the same God. They just listen to different "prophets" as Mohammed's theory goes.

And yes, the capability of seeing through Mohammed's theories creates a problem with the blind acceptance of the teachings of Christ or Moses or any other language.

If a person believes without reservation that the Red Sea was parted, that Mary was a Virgin while married, and Christ was resurrected from the grave, then how would that person be able to say that Mohamed was actually a schizophrenic that got lucky in a few military battles.

The belief in these concepts take the exact same leap of faith to accept without reservation, thus finding fault with any single religion, regardless of its origin, is weakening the main concept of all religions.

There is not a single shred of proof for any religion, thus philosophical reasoning is all that is left to squabble over

You can call Mohammed a charlatan, Moses a great leader that got lucky, Christ a very good evangelist, Siddhartha Gautama crazy, L. Ron Hubbard under medicated, but what does it accomplish in the end....................

[tits]

Name a successful ME country that is not a monotheistic dictatorship.

I worked the oil fields of the ME for many years before the 1991 war and did an environmental audit of the Kuwaiti oil field with USACHPPM in 1993. I also did 18 years in the Marines/USNR before the Gulf War Disease forced a medical disability.

Religion and government cannot be separated under the Qur'an. This is problem with this war. Neither the Neo-Lib left nor the Neo-Con right understand this. The Muslim lives by Five basic Tenets and the more fundamentalistic zealots live by six, it is these kooks doing the suicide murders in Iraq and Israel. However, the greatest tenet is: “There is no God but Allah.” There are over 100 verses in the Qur’an that state that Allah is over all governments and leaders. This concept that God is over everything prevents a pure secular government such as the Judeo/Christian West (France included). This also lays the ground rules for a bitter violent conflict with any who would remove God from their government. Under Christianity, Jesus said to pray for our rulers and to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. This implies that a Christian can live and flourish under a secular government. But no such qualifier exists in Islam.

You have limited your argument to just observation by stating that you are neither Judeo/Christian nor Muslim and that you saw Kuwait and Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. I can assure you that the view is totally different as a civilian contractor working for Kuwaiti National Petroleum or BBI in Israel. The entire argument does not and cannot not be waged using hypocritical Western sense of morality. Observations are never right nor wrong for they are simply the perspective from the observer. The problem is that many of the West do not live by a faith that they would die for. Those that are Christian or Orthodox Jews or Muslims who stand by their faith are decried as intolerant and evil. Where is the real evil and intolerance? Those who will not compromise their faith in God or those who will not compromise their faith in their secular deity of humanism. Both claim a superior intellect and understanding.

By the way, I am a Christian and I have studied the Qur'an. If you want to argue using these books as foundations then fine. But do not self-limit your proposition by speaking from hearsay and observations.

Now, the kicker. Neither the Judeo/Christian secular western government nor monotheistic monarchy, dictatorships of Islam are pure. The rulers and the governments are hypocritical. The real challenge is to identify the patterns of governance that really exist within each.

[toejam]

zstuf said:

If a person believes without reservation that the Red Sea was parted, that Mary was a Virgin while married, and Christ was resurrected from the grave, then how would that person be able to say that Mohamed was actually a schizophrenic that got lucky in a few military battles.

You're the only one who's said that so far. In that case you are making a straw man to knock down when in fact none of us has said anything of the kind except you.

In the second place, your argument about one religion invalidating the other is so broad it has no meaning anymore. You are comparing truth claims against history - apples and oranges. How would archeology prove that the Red Sea was ever parted? How would it prove that it wasn't? If Jesus didn't rise from the grave then where's the body?

There is not a single shred of proof for any religion, thus philosophical reasoning is all that is left to squabble over

You can call Mohammed a charlatan, Moses a great leader that got lucky, Christ a very good evangelist, Siddhartha Gautama crazy, L. Ron Hubbard under medicated, but what does it accomplish in the end....................

Moses was not a great leader. He had a speech impediment. Jesus of Nazareth was not an evangelist, a philosopher, or any of the things you people say He was. He thought he was God. He either was who He says he was or He was a total nutjob.

And Jesus was a true historical person, which is the single most provable thing about Him. Even the historians of the time mention Him.

In another post you wrote:

I question anything that has religion and war intertwined.......and religion and law as well.

These combinations make terrible bedfellows

Understanding that as a starting point would allow a reader to follow the logic of my view points.

The first amendment guaratees freedom of religion. Cite any other reference you want, but none of them made it into the Constitution.

From a purely philsophical point of view, a moral law, hence, civil law, posits a moral law giver.

Law and religion is the Gordian knot that atheists have been trying to untie for years, without much success.

[zstuf]

toejam said:

zstuf said:

If a person believes without reservation that the Red Sea was parted, that Mary was a Virgin while married, and Christ was resurrected from the grave, then how would that person be able to say that Mohamed was actually a schizophrenic that got lucky in a few military battles.

You're the only one who's said that so far. In that case you are making a straw man to knock down when in fact none of us has said anything of the kind except you.

In the second place, your argument about one religion invalidating the other is so broad it has no meaning anymore. You are comparing truth claims against history - apples and oranges. How would archeology prove that the Red Sea was ever parted? How would it prove that it wasn't? If Jesus didn't rise from the grave then where's the body?



Moses was not a great leader. He had a speech impediment. Jesus of Nazareth was not an evangelist, a philosopher, or any of the things you people say He was. He thought he was God. He either was who He says he was or He was a total nutjob.

And Jesus was a true historical person, which is the single most provable thing about Him. Even the historians of the time mention Him.

In another post you wrote:

I question anything that has religion and war intertwined.......and religion and law as well.

These combinations make terrible bedfellows

Understanding that as a starting point would allow a reader to follow the logic of my view points.

The first amendment guaratees freedom of religion. Cite any other reference you want, but none of them made it into the Constitution.

From a purely philsophical point of view, a moral law, hence, civil law, posits a moral law giver.

Law and religion is the Gordian knot that atheists have been trying to untie for years, without much success.

I tossed the question out on Mohammed in a thread entitled ISLAM.

You asked a question, I responded with a point of view.

"If Mohammed turned out to be full of shit why would that weaken Christianity?

What more do you want, a 3,000 word line item by line item essay on the differences between Christianity and Islam?

Have I said anything historically inacurate?

What's the problem?

And as for my response to the question of whether or not I am the same ZSTUF from THC,

What the hell are you talkin about Willis?

The reader that asked the question had obviously read some of my posts on THC, and I politely answered the question and tried to respond to the loyalties comment (which is a valid concern, or point of view)

Ask me a straight question, I'll give a straight answer on any of my previous posts here or THC.

"Jesus of Nazareth was not an evangelist, a philosopher, or any of the things you people say He was."

Please define "you people".

I never said he was anything, nor was not anything.

[zstuf]

tits said:

Name a successful ME country that is not a monotheistic dictatorship.

I worked the oil fields of the ME for many years before the 1991 war and did an environmental audit of the Kuwaiti oil field with USACHPPM in 1993. I also did 18 years in the Marines/USNR before the Gulf War Disease forced a medical disability.

Religion and government cannot be separated under the Qur'an. This is problem with this war. Neither the Neo-Lib left nor the Neo-Con right understand this. The Muslim lives by Five basic Tenets and the more fundamentalistic zealots live by six, it is these kooks doing the suicide murders in Iraq and Israel. However, the greatest tenet is: “There is no God but Allah.” There are over 100 verses in the Qur’an that state that Allah is over all governments and leaders. This concept that God is over everything prevents a pure secular government such as the Judeo/Christian West (France included). This also lays the ground rules for a bitter violent conflict with any who would remove God from their government. Under Christianity, Jesus said to pray for our rulers and to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. This implies that a Christian can live and flourish under a secular government. But no such qualifier exists in Islam.

You have limited your argument to just observation by stating that you are neither Judeo/Christian nor Muslim and that you saw Kuwait and Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. I can assure you that the view is totally different as a civilian contractor working for Kuwaiti National Petroleum or BBI in Israel. The entire argument does not and cannot not be waged using hypocritical Western sense of morality. Observations are never right nor wrong for they are simply the perspective from the observer. The problem is that many of the West do not live by a faith that they would die for. Those that are Christian or Orthodox Jews or Muslims who stand by their faith are decried as intolerant and evil. Where is the real evil and intolerance? Those who will not compromise their faith in God or those who will not compromise their faith in their secular deity of humanism. Both claim a superior intellect and understanding.

By the way, I am a Christian and I have studied the Qur'an. If you want to argue using these books as foundations then fine. But do not self-limit your proposition by speaking from hearsay and observations.

Now, the kicker. Neither the Judeo/Christian secular western government nor monotheistic monarchy, dictatorships of Islam are pure. The rulers and the governments are hypocritical. The real challenge is to identify the patterns of governance that really exist within each.

Tittus, I agree with you Sir, (bet you did't see that coming)

I'm not a scholar, nor an expert on religion, never will be. My opinions and view points are drawn from my personal experiences, I have never read the Qu'ran and don't plan on reading it.

I was not attempting to place limits with my declarations about not accepting the concepts that Islam or Christianity puts forth. I simply wanted the reader to be aware that this was not an attack on any one religion, nor was I trying to support the beliefs of any one religion with the question I posed for conversation.

You pointed out rather well that religion and government are tied together very closely in the Middle East.

I have never believed that there has ever been any successful military organization that did not believe that they had a god on their side. Religion has always been a key component in troop moral and motivation prior to a battle of significance. The Middle East is not unique in this respect.

This is why I believe you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

We are not fighting a religion, we are fighting multiple groups of people that believe in one religion, and as such, the religion is one of the tools used to motivate and manipulate the soldiers into sacrificing themselves at the leaderships requests.

Take a look at this interview with Robert Pape, an Associate Professor at the University of Chicago. The interview discusses his book on suicide terrorism, entitled Dying to Win

amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html

[toejam]

zstuf said:

I tossed the question out on Mohammed in a thread entitled ISLAM.

You asked a question, I responded with a point of view.

What's the problem?

The problem is that you are not just tossing red meat to the THC crowd. This is a different venue and you will be expected to explain and defend your position when necessary.

[zstuf]

toejam said:

zstuf said:

I tossed the question out on Mohammed in a thread entitled ISLAM.

You asked a question, I responded with a point of view.

What's the problem?

The problem is that you are not just tossing red meat to the THC crowd. This is a different venue and you will be expected to explain and defend your position when necessary.

This sounds like a good plan to me...............

So, what exactly did you mean when you stated

"Jesus of Nazareth was not an evangelist, a philosopher, or any of the things you people say He was."

What did you mean by "you people"?

[tits]

source, very indepth. www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/suicide/

PBS.org "Wideangle" "Suicide Bombers"

There are a number of very detailed books that deal with the social psychology of the suicide bomber. One book examines the suicide terrorist going back to ancient Greece.

You have identified a great subject. Thanks!

[zstuf]

The PBS segment has a lot of good info.

THANKS,


In God We Trust.............All Others Are Monitored.

[wolfen244]

zstuf,

>>Do you believe any of the history on Mohamed?

The only thing you may wish to believe is his own writings which tells you about his integrity, his views on women and his neighborliness, not to mention his wonderful ideas on heaven.

w

Kill infidels wherever you find them.
--Mohammed.

If you die while killing a Jew or infidel you will receive 72 virgins in heaven.
--Mohammed.

It's okay to lie to an infidel.
--Mohammed.