NationStates Jolt Archive

explain on what style of religious diety the Soviestan is so i may know my voting candidates better

Buddha.

explain on what style of religious diety the Soviestan is so i may know my voting candidates better

Depends on what version he's on currently. He started as a pretty vocal athiest, then in a turn toward the dramatic "converted" to Islam. Then a couple months back he had a "coming out" thread which I can't really remember the contents of. So he's either a gay athiest, a gay muslim, or not gay and somewhere in between. Sorta depends.

*Hides from thread*

Jesus invented Easter and Christmas. Nuff said.

Seeing as the two are arguably the two most important figures in the world's two largest religions, who do you feel was the better person based on their historical accounts?
This is like the distilled essence of all pick-the-lesser-of-two-evils questions.

"Which rapist was a better person?" Sheesh.

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

Consider this,

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

Seeing as the two are arguably the two most important figures in the world's two largest religions, who do you feel was the better person based on their historical accounts?

the one with the biggest wang!

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

yeah, we would of had a huge Christian church exploiting peoples beliefs...

This is like the distilled essence of all pick-the-lesser-of-two-evils questions.

"Which rapist was a better person?" Sheesh.

The lesser of two evils is still evil. So why pick the lesser! Go for the gusto!

Seeing as the two are arguably the two most important figures in the world's two largest religions, who do you feel was the better person based on their historical accounts?
I haven't read enough about Mohammed to make this judgement. Nor, I suspect, have most of the people who will respond.

Neither. Buddah is way better. He's fat and I can rub his belly.:D

Its guessed that if God have never existed, maybe we would all naturally be 'good'
As without God, there is no good, without God, there would be no Satan to create evil

-------------------------
*backs away from Nanatsu and his belly-rubbing powers*

Historically, Islam is a response to the corruption that had taken over Christianity, so you're really asking the wrong question.

Jesus is the lesser of two evils here soo...

Jesus could walk on water and then turn it into wine if he wanted to. I want friends like that.

(actually I don't know enough about mohammed to compare)

I don't know because i've never met them, though i'm sure both were very well meaning people. It's the people they knew who really kicked things off.
If i had to pick, well hard to say i don't really know alot about Prophet Muhammad, so for now i'd go without Jesus and see how things go.

Neither. Buddah is way better. He's fat and I can rub his belly.:D

And slap his bald head too.

This needs to be settled once and for all with a Faith Fighter tournament.

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

Consider this,

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

:rolleyes: All of that applies to Moh'd too. In his own lifetime, Moh'd achieved more than Jesus.

Disclaimer: I do not necessarily believe the historical accounts of Mohammed or Jesus. Also, I am a follower of neither.

According to their historical accounts, both were very good people. This is to be expected of religious founders.

True, Jesus forsake all worldly possessions and become a traveling prophet, while Mohammed led an army, but I don't view poverty as pious, or leading an army in war as evil. And while Jesus resorted to entirely non-violent means, Mohammed achieved more in his lifetime. Christianty after Jesus' death: minor offshoot of Judaism. Islam after Mohammed's death: major religion/empire.

Ultimately, I have to go with Jesus. See, Jesus created new commandments for his people. Mohammed, on the other hand, is guilty of large-scale plagiarism. Islam is a total ripoff of Judaism.

This is like the distilled essence of all pick-the-lesser-of-two-evils questions.

"Which rapist was a better person?" Sheesh.

So you'd look at a guy who:

(Note I'm only mentioning the things that don't require Christian belief to accept)

-Taught love over vengeance
-Taught people charity toward the poor
-Taught people not to judge each other
-Spoke out against physical punishment for religious crime
-Backed up everything he said by showing an example
-Got rid of corruption in the moneychangers at the temple

...and you compare him to a rapist.

Leads one to wonder what traits would satisfy you.

So you'd look at a guy who:

(Note I'm only mentioning the things that don't require Christian belief to accept)

-Taught love over vengeance
-Taught people charity toward the poor
-Taught people not to judge each other
-Spoke out against physical punishment for religious crime
-Backed up everything he said by showing an example
-Got rid of corruption in the moneychangers at the temple

...and you compare him to a rapist.

Leads one to wonder what traits would satisfy you.

Jebus, according to Christian belief is just another aspect of God. God is a dick on a grand scale.

Jesus is LORD! and if you want to know why there is a reason.Like how come what Jesus said is coming true and everything that the muhammed said isn't.Jesus told about the prophecys of the End Times and every one is coming true.Jesus is coming back to get His followers and take us up to heaven to be with God.All you who aren't Christians will have to stay on earth through 7 years of darkness,pain,suffering,death,sadness,sickness, and you will miss your cousins who were about 8-9 years old.In fact every one who doesn't really know how to make a choice in religion will be taken up to heaven.

:)GO JESUS!:)

So you'd look at a guy who:

(Note I'm only mentioning the things that don't require Christian belief to accept)

-Taught love over vengeance
-Taught people charity toward the poor
-Taught people not to judge each other
-Spoke out against physical punishment for religious crime
-Backed up everything he said by showing an example
-Got rid of corruption in the moneychangers at the temple

...and you compare him to a rapist.

Leads one to wonder what traits would satisfy you.
All of those teachings are lovely, but a rapist who taught them would still be a rapist.

Jebus, according to Christian belief is just another aspect of God. God is a dick on a grand scale.


That's an excuse.

Unless you ARE a Christian, in which case the answer is slanted anyway.

If you're an atheist, Jesus was just a guy. (If he existed at all)

All of those teachings are lovely, but a rapist who taught them would still be a rapist.

Yeah. So how many people did Jesus rape?

Yeah. So how many people did Jesus rape?
According to Christian doctrine, at least one.

To be fair, though, the only real information I have to go on about either fellow is the corresponding religious texts for each faith. So I can only judge the individuals based on the accounts written by their own followers, which are bound to be at least somewhat skewed. I'm just assuming they are accurate for the sake of argument, since otherwise the question would be as meaningless as asking whether Bill Everyman Of Aramethia (circa 0 CE) is a better guy than Dale Someguy of Palestine (circa 600 CE).

I'll admit a certain partiality toward Jesus, But they were both pretty good guys.

Their fan clubs suck though. *nod*

Jesus is LORD! and if you want to know why there is a reason.Like how come what Jesus said is coming true and everything that the muhammed said isn't.Jesus told about the prophecys of the End Times and every one is coming true.Jesus is coming back to get His followers and take us up to heaven to be with God.All you who aren't Christians will have to stay on earth through 7 years of darkness,pain,suffering,death,sadness,sickness, and you will miss your cousins who were about 8-9 years old.In fact every one who doesn't really know how to make a choice in religion will be taken up to heaven.

:)GO JESUS!:)

I never understood people who prophecise the end of the world, i mean no ones going to complain if you're right (as they'l be dead), therefore the only criticism you can get is when you're eventually wrong.
So really no point at all saying the world is going to end, a better prophecy is how we would avoid destroying the world.
no point to them what-so-ever

Yeah. So how many people did Jesus rape?

LMAO I can imagine people wearing WWJR bracelets instead of WWJD ones.

Jesus:

If you would believe in Him, then the best resume ever:
God from God
Light from Light
True God from True God

Not to mention, turning water into wine, (and thus the possibility of other alcoholic beverages from various liquids), raising the dead, outsmarting pompous arrogant pharisees, and quieting storms so as to nap undisturbed.

If not, then still the best hoodwink ever. Since Christians outnumber Muslims, then Jesus was the more believable.

Mohammed:

If you believe in him, good, but not quite as good:
Prophet of God

That's about it for the resume. He also led armies, directed caravans, but denied the use of wine and other beverages, like whisky and whiskey.

Neither. Buddah is way better. He's fat and I can rub his belly.:D

No. That depiction of "buddha" is actually a god known as Hotei.

Jesus:


...Not to mention, turning water into wine, (and thus the possibility of other alcoholic beverages from various liquids)....

Jesus should've been a bartender. He would've had a larger following as well.

Compare and contrast:

John 8:3-11 (New American Standard Bible): The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

Bukhari Hadith:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/082.htm

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794: Narrated Anas: Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65: "Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o: Narrated 'Abdullah: We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, "Shall we get ourselves castrated?" He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract (2) and recited to us: -- 'O you who believe ! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.' (5.87)

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33: Narrated Usama bin Zaid: The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 121: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas: During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, the sun eclipsed. Allah's Apostle offered the prayer of (the) eclipse) and so did the people along with him. He performed a long Qiyam (standing posture) during which Surat-al-Baqara could have been recited; then he performed a pro-longed bowing, then raised his head and stood for a long time which was slightly less than that of the first Qiyam (and recited Qur'an). Then he performed a prolonged bowing again but the period was shorter than the period of the first bowing, then he stood up and then prostrated. Again he stood up, but this time the period of standing was less than the first standing. Then he performed a prolonged bowing but of a lesser duration than the first, then he stood up again for a long time but for a lesser duration than the first. Then he performed a prolonged bowing but of lesser duration than the first, and then he again stood up, and then prostrated and then finished his prayer. By then the sun eclipse had cleared. The Prophet then said, "The sun and the moon are two signs among the signs of Allah, and they do not eclipse because of the death or birth of someone, so when you observe the eclipse, remember Allah (offer the eclipse prayer)." They (the people) said, "O Allah's Apostle! We saw you stretching your hand to take something at this place of yours, then we saw you stepping backward." He said, "I saw Paradise (or Paradise was shown to me), and I stretched my hand to pluck a bunch (of grapes), and had I plucked it, you would have eaten of it as long as this world exists. Then I saw the (Hell) Fire, and I have never before, seen such a horrible sight as that, and I saw that the majority of its dwellers were women." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the reason for that?" He replied, "Because of their ungratefulness." It was said. "Do they disbelieve in Allah (are they ungrateful to Allah)?" He replied, "They are not thankful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do good to one of them all your life, when she seems some harshness from you, she will say, "I have never seen any good from you.' "

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 132: Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a: The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/hadeeth/bukhari/062.htm

And for those who don’t think the bloodthirsty nature and bad character of the so-called “prophet” is an issue:

Sura 33:21:
YUSUFALI: Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
PICKTHAL: Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much.
SHAKIR: Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the latter day and remembers Allah much.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html

Sura 68:4:
YUSUFALI: And thou [Mohammed] (standest) on an exalted standard of character.
PICKTHAL: And lo! thou art of a tremendous nature.
SHAKIR: And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/068.qmt.html

Clearly, as a human being (let alone as the Son of the One True God, one in being with the Father) Jesus Christ is morally superior to the so-called "prophet". The very comparison is pejorative and insulting to Him.

...and you compare him to a rapist.
*Sighs*

*Shakes head at idiocy*

I knew I should have stayed out of this thread...

Compare and contrast:.

By counter, I submit christian history, US foreign policy over the last 50 years and your attitude. Game set and match to me.

Seeing as the two are arguably the two most important figures in the world's two largest religions, who do you feel was the better person based on their historical accounts?

Oh boy. I could write a book on this. I think its clear on what my view is on this issue, so I won't raise the temperature in here with a post about the horrors of Muhammad.

Looks like Mohammed is striking out in the early tally. I would have thought he would have gotten at least one vote.

According to Christian doctrine, at least one.


Not in any Christian doctrine I've ever heard of.

Edit: I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and presume you refer to the Immaculate Conception. (Which I won't bother to refute because the very statement is non-sequitur, if I guess right.)

...which, as an atheist, you don't believe in. Therefore, you're arguing based on a false premise from your own point of view.

Jesus is LORD! and if you want to know why there is a reason.Like how come what Jesus said is coming true and everything that the muhammed said isn't.Jesus told about the prophecys of the End Times and every one is coming true.Jesus is coming back to get His followers and take us up to heaven to be with God.All you who aren't Christians will have to stay on earth through 7 years of darkness,pain,suffering,death,sadness,sickness, and you will miss your cousins who were about 8-9 years old.In fact every one who doesn't really know how to make a choice in religion will be taken up to heaven.
I'd argue with you on this point. I don't believe in an end times scenario like the left behind books, and yourself draw up. if you realize that God has lead his people through tough times by giving them stories/parables, you'd realize that a lot of the book of revelation, is just a story for Christians on how God will ultimately triumph over evil. Just like how the creation story is simply giving an easy way to understand how God made everything. You can even see Jesus, who is God in flesh, using parables to teach the people, along with all the prophets using the same method. God uses these images and stories to help make sense of what is going on. We should not read current events into prophecy, because it will always end up wrong.


:)GO JESUS!:)

This I will agree with :)

They were both fundamentalist religious nutjobs who tried to make people believe in a fabricated god. They were both not good persons.

There is only but one true god and i worship this divine entity and none of the many translated faces that factionalise this entity into different forms

Do not choose a colour, but worship the white light for it is the presence of all colours and thus our one lord

---------------

hence why i cant name my religion because that would make a new faction

Oh boy. I could write a book on this. I think its clear on what my view is on this issue, so I won't raise the temperature in here with a post about the horrors of Muhammad.The horrors of Yeshua are not any lesser.

There is only but one true god and i worship this divine entity and none of the many translated faces that factionalise this entity into different forms

Do not choose a colour, but worship the white light for it is the presence of all colours and thus our one lordAnu?

Compare and contrast:

The Book of Revelation. Jesus and God will slaugther the entirety of the world who does not believe in Jesus, and sentence them to hell on Earth until they perish.

I win.

Looks like Mohammed is striking out in the early tally. I would have thought he would have gotten at least one vote.

I think even muslims would be able to agree that Jesus is the superior one.

For instance, as a Muslim, don't you (if you are still one) believe that Prophet Isa will be judging on judgement day(there is a big contradiction regarding the judgement day, and Jesus, in Islam)? That he was born miraculously? That he is the very word of God? And was the only prophet able to create life (bird from clay)?

Yet, Mohammad was given the qualities of a politician. he was able to lead his troops to battle, and establish a kingdom, but he did so through raiding caravans, going into debt, killing all dissidents, and putting fierce control on women.


All that I have said can be found in the Quran and Hadith, so it isn't just my Christian bias.

They were both fundamentalist religious nutjobs who tried to make people believe in a fabricated god. They were both not good persons.

How was Jesus not a good person?

How was Jesus not a good person?
Reading is fun!

They were both fundamentalist religious nutjobs who tried to make people believe in a fabricated god.

How was Jesus not a good person?Someone who asks for complete submission under a fake god is not a good person but a waste of oxygen.

Jesus telling people to believe in a one true God who cares for them, is bad? Since when is giving people a message of hope and love bad?

One more time:


They were both fundamentalist religious nutjobs who tried to make people believe in a fabricated god.

Jesus telling people to believe in a one true God who cares for them, is bad?Since that god is a lie, it is bad.

The horrors of Yeshua are not any lesser.

Oh please do enlighten us.:rolleyes:

The Book of Revelation. Jesus and God will slaugther the entirety of the world who does not believe in Jesus, and sentence them to hell on Earth until they perish.

I win.

Fail:I'd argue with you on this point. I don't believe in an end times scenario like the left behind books, and yourself draw up. if you realize that God has lead his people through tough times by giving them stories/parables, you'd realize that a lot of the book of revelation is just a story for Christians on how God will ultimately triumph over evil. Just like how the creation story is simply giving an easy way to understand how God made everything. You can even see Jesus, who is God in flesh, using parables to teach the people, along with all the prophets using the same method. God uses these images and stories to help make sense of what is going on. We should not read current events into prophecy, because it will always end up wrong.


I win. :)

Jesus telling people to believe in a one true God who cares for them, is bad? Since when is giving people a message of hope and love bad? Did you want Jesus to say "Hey you damn jews, you all are stupid mindless drones. This life is all your will ever have, so it sucks to be you! HAHAHA"


yeah, that would be sooo much better.:rolleyes:

I think some people actually would prefer that. Don't forget how many people walk around with a chip on their shoulder where the Lord is concerned, and the only form of debate they can understand is vitriol and hatemongering.

Gonna send you a TG, if you don't mind.

Reading is fun!

Jesus telling people to believe in a one true God who cares for them, is bad? Since when is giving people a message of hope and love bad? Did you want Jesus to say "Hey you damn jews, you all are stupid mindless drones. This life is all your will ever have, so it sucks to be you! HAHAHA"


yeah, that would be sooo much better.:rolleyes:

Okay, are you two done getting each other off with your overwhelming idiotic statements?

Giving people hope, through God, and telling them to live a submitted life, which ultimately, if done right, would benefit the world as much as yourself, is bad HOW? How awful is it to ask me to love my enemies and neighbors? or to give to the poor? or to help out the innocent? or to be humble and not an arrogant prick ? Or to be at peace with everyone? How is that bad? You only try to over dramatize the situation, in order to justify the insecurities in your own life. If you keep telling yourself its bad, then you don't feel terrible for not abiding by it.A lie is always bad. Telling people that the value of their lives depends on what they believe is not only bad, but evil. Jesus was an evil person, because he made people believe in a lie (the fake jewish god).

Go for it, I am always up for TGs :D

Sent :)

Since that god is a lie, it is bad.

One more time:

Someone who asks for complete submission under a fake god is not a good person but a waste of oxygen.

Okay, are you two done getting each other off with your overwhelming idiotic statements?

Giving people hope, through God, and telling them to live a submitted life, which ultimately, if done right, would benefit the world as much as yourself, is bad HOW? How awful is it to ask me to love my enemies and neighbors? or to give to the poor? or to help out the innocent? or to be humble and not an arrogant prick ? Or to be at peace with everyone? How is that bad? You only try to over dramatize the situation, in order to justify the insecurities in your own life. If you keep telling yourself its bad, then you don't feel terrible for not abiding by it.

I think some people actually would prefer that. Don't forget how many people walk around with a chip on their shoulder where the Lord is concerned, and the only form of debate they can understand is vitriol and hatemongering.

Gonna send you a TG, if you don't mind.


Go for it, I am always up for TGs :D

Jesus may have been a pederast (well, Mohammad fucked a nine-year old too), but he was certainly better than Mo-boy.

Jesus may have been a pederast

Do you have anything to back this up or are you simply throwing that out there as a theory?

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

He most certainly did. He also had a more immediate effect, whereas Christianity took the best part of three centuries to start influencing the running of an empire.

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to compare Jesus and Mohammed, given that Jesus is/was supposed to be the incarnate logos of God himself, while Mohammed is/was, of course, a prophet, rather than any kind of god.

As for whether it is *ever* acceptable to have religion (yeah, odd debate, but it seems to be the theme we're on :p), I'll agree that it's wrong or even "evil" to promote a belief you know to be false. Whether Jesus did this, I strongly doubt provided biblical accounts are reasonably accurate if they occurred at all. Mohammed I know less about and can't really say.

True, Jesus forsake all worldly possessions and become a traveling prophet,

Sure about that?

1Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. 2"But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot."

3While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? 5It could have been sold for more than a year's wages[a] and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

6"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Letting women pour expensive perfume over your head and expressly rebuking those who suggest that it could have been sold to raise money for charity doesn't seem to fit in with your ascetic image of Jesus (neither does the description of him elsewhere as a 'glutton and a drunkard' but that's another story...)

And while Jesus resorted to entirely non-violent means,

Chasing moneylenders out of the temple with a whip non-violent?

So you'd look at a guy who:

(Note I'm only mentioning the things that don't require Christian belief to accept)

-Spoke out against physical punishment for religious crime

-Got rid of corruption in the moneychangers at the temple

Aren't these two points rather contradictory? Hitting someone with a whip because they were doing business in a temple sounds like a physical punishment for a religious crime to me... ;):p

Oh, and the whole moneylenders incident is rather historically dubious as:
1. the moneychangers would all have had bodyguards present to protect against robbers and ensure fair play, they would surely have been able to stop an itinerate preacher.
2. the Romans actually kept an army unit stationed near the Temple during passover for the express purpose of stopping people from starting trouble (one of the Gnostic gospels actually has Jesus fighting legionaries on his way out of the temple).

It's hard to accept it without an a priori commitment to the accuracy of the Gospels.

According to Christian doctrine, at least one.

To be fair, though, the only real information I have to go on about either fellow is the corresponding religious texts for each faith. So I can only judge the individuals based on the accounts written by their own followers, which are bound to be at least somewhat skewed. I'm just assuming they are accurate for the sake of argument, since otherwise the question would be as meaningless as asking whether Bill Everyman Of Aramethia (circa 0 CE) is a better guy than Dale Someguy of Palestine (circa 600 CE).

The analogy I like to use is a group of people in the year 4000AD being asked to judge the moral character of Michael Jackson, based purely on the writings of four of his most devoted fans.

Jesus telling people to believe in a one true God who cares for them, is bad? Since when is giving people a message of hope and love bad? Did you want Jesus to say "Hey you damn jews, you all are stupid mindless drones. This life is all your will ever have, so make the most of it! HAHAHA"

^^Fixed

yeah, that would be sooo much better.:rolleyes:

Yep. Certainly better than the Epistles found in the New Testament where the authors advise the young people to abstain from marriage because the end of the world is nigh (Galatians), or the whose author is convinced that the audience are to be the last generation before the Apocalypse (2 Peter). Even today, environmental policy in the US is derailed by the sheer number of people who think that the world will end long before Global Warming or oil shortages kick in...

None of the above.

Do you have anything to back this up or are you simply throwing that out there as a theory?

Well, the believers don't seem to feel they're under any obligation to provide evidence for their speculations from their texts, whether it's the Assumption of Mary (mentioned nowhere in the Bible) or the tradition of Peter's inverted crucifixion (mentioned in one Gnostic text, the Acts of Peter, which is usually dismissed as heretical and insane, resurrected sardines anyone?)

So if they can do it why shouldn't Atheists? ;)

Letting women pour expensive perfume over your head and expressly rebuking those who suggest that it could have been sold to raise money for charity doesn't seem to fit in with your ascetic image of Jesus (neither does the description of him elsewhere as a 'glutton and a drunkard' but that's another story...)

Ah, but that is the story immediately preceding Judas's betrayal of Jesus, yeah? The contrast is pretty broad in terms of concern for money, as I recall - Judas selling Jesus out for a few bucks versus Jesus letting a woman sacrifice a fortune out of faith. Then again, I never remember having a ascetic view of Jesus to begin with, in the sense of abstaining from anything pleasurable.

Even today, environmental policy in the US is derailed by the sheer number of people who think that the world will end long before Global Warming or oil shortages kick in...

Not true. If you read that in Grist, or heard it repeated by Bill Moyers (before he retracted it and apologized) then you've unfortunately been misinformed by ordinarily reliable sources. Neither in the Reagan era or today has that been true.

Where is the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :(

Jesus telling people to believe in a one true God who cares for them, is bad?

Yes. This whole "One true god" bullshit is bad. Going to a group of people and saying our god is the only real one worship him alone or go to hell for all eternity is a bad thing. Christians need to stop trying to get other religions in dutch with their gods.

Odin, Thor, Tyr and the rest of the gods!

Okay, are you two done getting each other off with your overwhelming idiotic statements?

Giving people hope, through God, and telling them to live a submitted life, which ultimately, if done right, would benefit the world as much as yourself, is bad HOW? How awful is it to ask me to love my enemies and neighbors? or to give to the poor? or to help out the innocent? or to be humble and not an arrogant prick ? Or to be at peace with everyone? How is that bad?

Highlighted the bad part for you again.

Ah, but that is the story immediately preceding Judas's betrayal of Jesus, yeah? The contrast is pretty broad in terms of concern for money, as I recall - Judas selling Jesus out for a few bucks versus Jesus letting a woman sacrifice a fortune out of faith. Then again, I never remember having a ascetic view of Jesus to begin with, in the sense of abstaining from anything pleasurable.

An interesting perspective, but I don't believe the amount of money which Judas receives is ever specified in Mark: it's only in the later Gospels that the thirty pieces of silver make an appearance IIRC.

Not true. If you read that in Grist, or heard it repeated by Bill Moyers (before he retracted it and apologized) then you've unfortunately been misinformed by ordinarily reliable sources. Neither in the Reagan era or today has that been true.

I've never even heard of Bill Moyers or Grist, but 25% of Americans believe that the world will end in their lifetime: how could this not tar their views on long-term environmental policy?

I vote Jeebus since history shows Muhammed was probably a pedophile. That's just from an agnostic's point of view.

I vote Jeebus since history shows Muhammed was probably a pedophile. That's just from an agnostic's point of view.

History shows that he married someone who may have been as young as 9 or in some sources as old as 12 or 13. If the latter that was considered NORMAL during that time period, not just in the middle east but in Europe as well.

I've never even heard of Bill Moyers or Grist, but 25% of Americans believe that the world will end in their lifetime: how could this not tar their views on long-term environmental policy?

My mistake - I'm so used to hearing the claim repeated that I assumed you were referring to accusations about Reagan-era cabinet members. There was a fabricated quote from James Watt (Reagan's Sec. of the Interior) that was circulating for a while about a year or so back, where he supposedly said in Senate testimony that Jesus would return only after the environment was destroyed. Watt never said it, but it's been repeated here before to support the claim that Christians don't care about the environment or actively wish it to be destroyed, with is quite a slur, I think. It's probably true that a large chunk of evangelicals expect the return of Jesus any day, to the point of interpreting everything from global warming to a paper cut as a sign of Armageddon, but neglecting the environment on that basis is a bit different, I think, and hasn't ever been government policy. :p

History shows that he married someone who may have been as young as 9 or in some sources as old as 12 or 13. If the latter that was considered NORMAL during that time period, not just in the middle east but in Europe as well.

Why should people let small inconvenient details like historic life expectancy get in the way of a good time singing "Ebil Moslem"?

Why should people let small inconvenient details like historic life expectancy get in the way of a good time singing "Ebil Moslem"?

Life expectancy doesn't really figure in, from what I remember of biology class. The age at which girls could bear children in those times was actually much older on average than it is today.

Life expectancy doesn't really figure in, from what I remember of biology class. The age at which girls could bear children in those times was actually much older on average than it is today.

Yet as stated, Europe had people marrying at 12 or 13ish back in those times. However nobody today ever condemns marriages at such young ages as pedophilia unless Muslims are involved.

Mohammed could make a tree lust after (mohammed).

So Water into an alcoholic beverage VS making plants lust after you...

Yeah, Jesus still wins this round.

Jesus could walk on water and then turn it into wine if he wanted to. I want friends like that.

(actually I don't know enough about mohammed to compare)

Mohammed could make a tree lust after (mohammed).

Why should people let small inconvenient details like historic life expectancy get in the way of a good time singing "Ebil Moslem"?

For a Commie/atheist/whatever, you sure sound like a muslim. Quit pretending and join the brotherhood of human bombs.

Okay, are you two done getting each other off with your overwhelming idiotic statements?

Giving people hope, through God, and telling them to live a submitted life, which ultimately, if done right, would benefit the world as much as yourself, is bad HOW? How awful is it to ask me to love my enemies and neighbors? or to give to the poor? or to help out the innocent? or to be humble and not an arrogant prick ? Or to be at peace with everyone? How is that bad? You only try to over dramatize the situation, in order to justify the insecurities in your own life. If you keep telling yourself its bad, then you don't feel terrible for not abiding by it.

How is lying to people and manipulating them good?

It was exaguration, and yes, I am slightly bigoted against middle eastern muslims. Seven years of human bombs have created that in me.

I suppose 170+ years of crusades would have that same effect against European Christians too, wouldn't it?

Now, who can be the first to tell me why both his example and mine cannot justify a sweeping generalization?

For a Commie/atheist/whatever, you sure sound like a muslim. Quit pretending and join the brotherhood of human bombs.

:rolleyes:
And that's not bigotry?

:rolleyes:
And that's not bigotry?

It was exaguration, and yes, I am slightly bigoted against middle eastern muslims. Seven years of human bombs have created that in me.

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

Consider this,

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

Agree

I suppose 170+ years of crusades would have that same effect against European Christians too, wouldn't it?

Now, who can be the first to tell me why both his example and mine cannot justify a sweeping generalization?

Ya' see, that was 1000 years ago, this is today. But just to show ya' i'm a swell guy, i'll say this. "I don't like the crusaders either."

Yet as stated, Europe had people marrying at 12 or 13ish back in those times. However nobody today ever condemns marriages at such young ages as pedophilia unless Muslims are involved.

Marriage had little or nothing to do with sex until very recently in history - marriage was arranged by families as a matter of business, mostly. You could arrange a marriage even before either child was born, in theory. The idea of "consummating" a marriage with a 9-year old sounds objectionable no matter who you're talking about, by our standards today. I have no interest in slandering Muslims on that count, and unless they're still doing that today, I'd leave it in the past where it belongs.

Historically, Islam is a response to the corruption that had taken over Christianity, so you're really asking the wrong question.

Actually no it is not. Islam is based on the teachings of mohammed and the koran. Mohammed was not a chrisitian ever to my knowledge. He did acknowledge jesus as a prophet but neverhad anythign else to do with chrisitanity. Not to mention that Islam was founded in what is now saudi arabia which has never been very christian and thus nobody would care if the chrisitian churches were corrupt.

Ya' see, that was 1000 years ago, this is today. But just to show ya' i'm a swell guy, i'll say this. "I don't like the crusaders either."

Way to miss the point. The main point is this: the aforementioned events do not reflect the religion as a whole, specifically one very unflattering interpretation of it.

Way to miss the point. The main point is this: the aforementioned events do not reflect the religion as a whole, specifically one very unflattering interpretation of it.

I do feel it is mainly the culture, but islam is a major part of that culture. See my statement: "middle eastern muslims".

Actually no it is not. Islam is based on the teachings of mohammed and the koran. Mohammed was not a chrisitian ever to my knowledge. He did acknowledge jesus as a prophet but neverhad anythign else to do with chrisitanity. Not to mention that Islam was founded in what is now saudi arabia which has never been very christian and thus nobody would care if the chrisitian churches were corrupt.

Muhammed clearly says that the message of Jesus was corrupted and hence Allah sent him as a last and final messenger.

It is like this. Judaism - first release, Xtianity - Version 2 and Islam - Version 3.

I could care less about why latest version is better than the earlier one or how a new company has plagiarized existing copy to slightly modify it.....just don't try to install these versions in my system. :p

For a Commie/atheist/whatever, you sure sound like a muslim. Quit pretending and join the brotherhood of human bombs.

It was exaguration, and yes, I am slightly bigoted against middle eastern muslims. Seven years of human bombs have created that in me.

It goes beyond being slightly bigoted. Let's look at your first post and discern some things.

Your first post implies that Gauthier pretends to be a "Commie" or an "atheist", but that he acts like a Muslim. First of all, that's basically condescending towards anyone that doesn't believe in God as well as anyone that doesn't believe the heap of bullshit known as capitalism isn't perfect.

You then tell him to join the brotherhood of human bombs. In other words, you are saying that Muslims are human bombs, that all Muslims are terrorists. First of all, that's a fallacy, since I'm certainly not blowing you up, and the only terrorizing I could be doing to you is perhaps mental. Secondly, it's not mathematically possible, because if all Muslims were human bombs, and the average bomb kills about 50 people, then there would only be Muslims on this planet. Not to mention the fact that only a tiny minority of Muslims are violent anyways.

And just so you know, bigotry is never justified.

Yet as stated, Europe had people marrying at 12 or 13ish back in those times. However nobody today ever condemns marriages at such young ages as pedophilia unless Muslims are involved.

Erm... I don't think there are any Europeans who claim that all past-Europeans were morally perfect, but the moral perfection of Mohammed (and indeed all the other Prophets) is a central dogma of Islam. This is why it was made legal to marry nine year old girls in Iran following the Islamic Revolution (although I think this has since been reformed).

Jesus or Mohammed? Neither, I choose Lao-tzu.

Erm... I don't think there are any Europeans who claim that all past-Europeans were morally perfect, but the moral perfection of Mohammed (and indeed all the other Prophets) is a central dogma of Islam. This is why it was made legal to marry nine year old girls in Iran following the Islamic Revolution (although I think this has since been reformed).

And at the time he lived it was considered morally acceptable both in the middle east and in Europe to marry girls of a very young age.

Don't be obtuse.

It is the issue of consummation of the marriage to Aisha.

And you're saying that as long as there's no sexual activity between the partners that child marriages are perfectly acceptable by today's standards?

Don't be obtuse.

It is the issue of consummation of the marriage to Aisha.

Your point being? At the time marriage at a young age (and often the consummation thereof) was the NORM.

Yet as stated, Europe had people marrying at 12 or 13ish back in those times. However nobody today ever condemns marriages at such young ages as pedophilia unless Muslims are involved.

Don't be obtuse.

It is the issue of consummation of the marriage to Aisha.

Jesus:
Pros:
-Generally peaceful guy
-Recognized how barbaric certain Jewish laws were
-Advocated caring for other human beings
-Advocated seperation of church and state far before it came into vouge, especially being firmly in the church himself
-Got rid of even those Jewish laws that were not barbaric
-Created a pretty good religion in theory, with the exception of two points in the cons section and the fact that every Christian in history has ignored most of it.
Cons:
-Did not have much of a problem with violence, especially in the name of religion. ("I come not to bring peace but a sword" and all that.)
-Bit too much caught up in God
-Invented the concept of eternal Hell, which is in my opinion the worst concept in any religion on earth, because it's so horribly unjust.
-"...the only way to the Father is through me." Second worst concept of any religion on earth, because it means that Hitler is currently in Heaven and Gandhi is currently in Hell.
-All Christian states ever. The Crusades and the Inquisition both fit here.

Mohammed:
Pros:
-Started the various arabian empires off. Do not underestimate this one, it was a haven for all kinds of people that Christians hated, as well as a center of learning, right up till the Crusades.
-Made it solid law to not treat people badly, instead of Jesus' recommendations.
-Made Islam a little looser then Judaism, and updated certain things a little bit.
-Islam is based on good deeds rather then faith.
-No eternal Hell.
Cons:
-A rather strange personal life. Even if it was normal then, it's still a point for Jesus because he avoided it.
-Massive plagarism.
-Too many laws. Seriously, he really could have eliminated some stuff.
-To get that arabian empire, he had to conquer it.
-Advocated theocracy.
-Readopted the Israeli concept of having the death penalty for everything, and beatings for everything else.
-All current Muslim theocracies.

Jesus seems to have the edge to me.

Jesus:
Pros:
-Generally peaceful guy
-Recognized how barbaric certain Jewish laws were
-Advocated caring for other human beings
-Advocated seperation of church and state far before it came into vouge, especially being firmly in the church himself
-Got rid of even those Jewish laws that were not barbaric
-Created a pretty good religion in theory, with the exception of two points in the cons section and the fact that every Christian in history has ignored most of it.
Cons:
-Did not have much of a problem with violence, especially in the name of religion. ("I come not to bring peace but a sword" and all that.)
-Bit too much caught up in God
-Invented the concept of eternal Hell, which is in my opinion the worst concept in any religion on earth, because it's so horribly unjust.
-"...the only way to the Father is through me." Second worst concept of any religion on earth, because it means that Hitler is currently in Heaven and Gandhi is currently in Hell.
-All Christian states ever. The Crusades and the Inquisition both fit here.

Mohammed:
Pros:
-Started the various arabian empires off. Do not underestimate this one, it was a haven for all kinds of people that Christians hated, as well as a center of learning, right up till the Crusades.
-Made it solid law to not treat people badly, instead of Jesus' recommendations.
-Made Islam a little looser then Judaism, and updated certain things a little bit.
-Islam is based on good deeds rather then faith.
-No eternal Hell.
Cons:
-A rather strange personal life. Even if it was normal then, it's still a point for Jesus because he avoided it.
-Massive plagarism.
-Too many laws. Seriously, he really could have eliminated some stuff.
-To get that arabian empire, he had to conquer it.
-Advocated theocracy.
-Readopted the Israeli concept of having the death penalty for everything, and beatings for everything else.
-All current Muslim theocracies.

Jesus seems to have the edge to me.

Jesus didn't have a personal life?












Further proof that there was no historical Jesus (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

Consider this,

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

You are wrong. Have you studied the history of mohamed?
I doubt so. Mohamed was voted as the most influential people in history(research done by american sociologist). So basically i chose mohamed as better than the former.

Further proof that there was no historical Jesus (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

Ok, that thread is 92 pages long on the HIGHEST post per page ratio. What part of it provides proof that a woman named Mary and a man named Joseph did not have a child named Joshua who ran around Rome preaching an updated version of Judaism and was later crucified?

Consider this, If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

And so much better.

Ok, that thread is 92 pages long on the HIGHEST post per page ratio. What part of it provides proof that a woman named Mary and a man named Joseph did not have a child named Joshua who ran around Rome preaching an updated version of Judaism and was later crucified?

Nothing, I meant that Jesus not having a personal life was proof that there was no historical Jesus and was simply directing people to a thread for said discussion. Sorry if I was misleading :(

I voted Mohammed because it's more certain he is a historical figure.


OTOH Jesus - or the person created to be Messiah - had better and more editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) leading to a...cleaned image.

Also, while Christianity gave us the dark ages, Islam gave us the renaissance.

Jesus had a bigger impact on history however Mohammed has a bigger impact on the future.

And you're saying that as long as there's no sexual activity between the partners that child marriages are perfectly acceptable by today's standards?

Where did I say that?

Your point being? At the time marriage at a young age (and often the consummation thereof) was the NORM.

The point is that child marriage in itself is not pedophilia but consummation of the said marriage is.

AL: especially when both the groom and bride are children. For ex, Gandhi married Kasturibhai when both were 13. Is Gandhi a pedophile?

If a 50+ year old man marries a 9 year old and consummates the marriage, is that person a pedophile?

Even now, laws are different for sex with a minor and sex between minors right (correct me if I am wrong).

And just so you know, bigotry is never justified.

Never? I can think of justifiable bigotry, such as anti-nazi bigotry. Explain to me why you cannot.

Never? I can think of justifiable bigotry, such as anti-nazi bigotry. Explain to me why you cannot.

First of all, you're claiming that being a bigot against nazis is justified and so is being a bigot against Muslims. In other words, you are saying that Muslims are as bad as nazis, which I'm sure plenty here would take you up on.

Secondly, bigotry is when one acts like a bigot. A bigot is:

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Bigotry is inherently bad, it is often tied with closed-mindedness, stubborness, censorship, ignorance, and general stupidity.

History shows that he married someone who may have been as young as 9 or in some sources as old as 12 or 13. If the latter that was considered NORMAL during that time period, not just in the middle east but in Europe as well.

12 and 13 was, nine isn't. And the source I read said 7...

I voted Mohammed because it's more certain he is a historical figure.


OTOH Jesus - or the person created to be Messiah - had better and more editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha) leading to a...cleaned image.

Also, while Christianity gave us the dark ages, Islam gave us the renaissance.

The fall of Rome gave us the dark ages. In fact, Christian monastaries were some of the only preservers of Roman literature and medicine. The Crusades brought us the plague, and the Renaissance was driven by secular humanists.

Anti-Nazi bigotry is the worst form of bigotry because it's hypocrisy

At least a Nazi will say straight up who they hate and/or discriminate against. But most people would say how prejudice, discrimination and all the like is wrong, but one it comes to one specific group they use the tool they claim to be against.

The "I don't hate any person, any belief, sexual orienation... but I hate Nazis" is stupid and flawed. A person who thinks bigotry is wrong should not pick and choose who to be they can be a bigot to. Those who value the concept of free speech must be upheld would argue that surpressing ideas is a dangerous thing and can bite you in the backside later on.

I think bigotry based on someone's actions, beliefs or associations is somewhat acceptable because those people made that choice for themselves, unlike skin color, gender, or sexual orientation.

Never? I can think of justifiable bigotry, such as anti-nazi bigotry. Explain to me why you cannot.

Anti-Nazi bigotry is the worst form of bigotry because it's hypocrisy

At least a Nazi will say straight up who they hate and/or discriminate against. But most people would say how prejudice, discrimination and all the like is wrong, but one it comes to one specific group they use the tool they claim to be against.

The "I don't hate any person, any belief, sexual orienation... but I hate Nazis" is stupid and flawed. A person who thinks bigotry is wrong should not pick and choose who to be they can be a bigot to. Those who value the concept of free speech must be upheld would argue that surpressing ideas is a dangerous thing and can bite you in the backside later on.

First of all, you're claiming that being a bigot against nazis is justified and so is being a bigot against Muslims. In other words, you are saying that Muslims are as bad as nazis, which I'm sure plenty here would take you up on.

Secondly, bigotry is when one acts like a bigot. A bigot is:

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Bigotry is inherently bad, it is often tied with closed-mindedness, stubborness, censorship, ignorance, and general stupidity.

Anti-bigotry extremists have censored more than bigots this century. Political correctness is a plague. When someone like Don Imus gets fired over a joke, we have a problem.

The worst kind of people are the real hypocrites who will compromise human rights in the name of culture. Things like stoning women to death, or putting them in jail for naming a teddy bear Muhammed, are not acceptable to me. Neither is genital mutilation or any other ridiculous things like that.

Freedom of the individual >>>>> Religious tolerance.

If your religion involves stoning women to death or hanging gay men, then fuck your religion and fuck you.

I think bigotry based on someone's actions, beliefs or associations is somewhat acceptable because those people made that choice for themselves, unlike skin color, gender, or sexual orientation.

I understand where you're coming from, but I must ask, do we have a choice? Especially when it comes to ideas of religion, because what was taught during the formative years has a significant impact on a lot of people. And when it comes to sexual orientation people argue (although I sure wouldn't) that it's a choice. But I think the biggest question of bigotry is this: what makes you (individuals, belief systems, societies) the judge of what's right and what's wrong? Who am I to judge Hitler's beliefs? Who am I to say that Sharia Law is barbaric and has no place in modern society? Who am I to condemn a belief or an association I cannot prove as universally "wrong" or should be condemned?

On a practical standpoint it is easier and more efficient to discriminate, but I'm not going to jump the gun on condemning something/someone because of their ideas if it cannot be proven as a universal truth (or has yet to be)

Chuck Noris:p

I think it is generally fair to say both Christianity and Islam have helped and hurt the world in their own ways.

I don't know much about Muhammed because I haven't studied him enough, but I'm pretty sure Jesus would be disgusted at modern day Christianity, based on the accounts of who he was.

12 and 13 was, nine isn't. And the source I read said 7...

And others will say 12, 15, 18 and so forth. Who do we trust?

The fall of Rome gave us the dark ages. In fact, Christian monastaries were some of the only preservers of Roman literature and medicine. The Crusades brought us the plague, and the Renaissance was driven by secular humanists.

Christian monasteries preserved Roman knowledge to a small extent inside Europe, but who took Roman and Greek knowledge, studied it in vaster amounts, synthesized it with eastern knowledge, and added more to it? That was the work of Muslims in the Middle East. It was their learning that began to repenetrate Europe's centers of learning and lead to the Renaissance.

First of all, you're claiming that being a bigot against nazis is justified and so is being a bigot against Muslims. In other words, you are saying that Muslims are as bad as nazis, which I'm sure plenty here would take you up on.

Secondly, bigotry is when one acts like a bigot. A bigot is:

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Bigotry is inherently bad, it is often tied with closed-mindedness, stubborness, censorship, ignorance, and general stupidity.

I don't act like a bigot, I would be polite to any muslim I meet, in fact I think the majority of American muslims are fine people. I don't trust middle eastern muslims (not to kill me) however, and because of that I will never go there.

And Considering the fact that the middle east IS muslim, I consider it the same diffence as being "Islam". So if disliking and holding non-politically correct views on middle eastern muslims is bigoted, then I am, in that context.

I do feel that some muslims are as bad as nazi's. Hitler was widely supported there during WW2, and some muslims still like him even today. However, not all muslims are like that, some are nice ordinary people, some are angry close minded people and some are evil. I am just "bigoted" against a portion of that muslim population.

Anti-bigotry extremists have censored more than bigots this century. Political correctness is a plague. When someone like Don Imus gets fired over a joke, we have a problem.

The worst kind of people are the real hypocrites who will compromise human rights in the name of culture. Things like stoning women to death, or putting them in jail for naming a teddy bear Muhammed, are not acceptable to me. Neither is genital mutilation or any other ridiculous things like that.

Freedom of the individual >>>>> Religious tolerance.

If your religion involves stoning women to death or hanging gay men, then fuck your religion and fuck you.

And since when have I been advocating censorship? I'm letting you speak, just that you don't make a very convincing case. As for Don Imus, he wasn't actually censored, rather, it would have been counterproductive from a business sense to keep him. The fact is that he is a bigot, and the network would have lost money keeping him, because people don't like bigotry. You have the freedom to say what you like, but you also can't hack out of the consequences.

Show me where in the Quran that stoning women is justified, as well as executing homosexuals. Show me where it says you cannot name a teddy bear Muhammed, and where it says to cut up female's genitals. Until then, don't expect me to be cool with you comparing my religion to a fascist party.

Again, you're free to say what you like, no one's stopping you. But you're certainly not making a good image of yourself in my eyes, and I certainly have the right to disagree with you. I am not silencing bigots, rather trying to educate them into seeing how foolish they are.

Anti-Nazi bigotry is the worst form of bigotry because it's hypocrisy

At least a Nazi will say straight up who they hate and/or discriminate against. But most people would say how prejudice, discrimination and all the like is wrong, but one it comes to one specific group they use the tool they claim to be against.

The "I don't hate any person, any belief, sexual orienation... but I hate Nazis" is stupid and flawed. A person who thinks bigotry is wrong should not pick and choose who to be they can be a bigot to. Those who value the concept of free speech must be upheld would argue that surpressing ideas is a dangerous thing and can bite you in the backside later on.

I'm "bigoted" against some people because of their VIEWPOINT, not any racial characteristics. Face it, everyone is bigoted in some way's, you are bigoted against right-wingers, from what I have seen of your posts.

I don't act like a bigot, I would be polite to any muslim I meet, in fact I think the majority of American muslims are fine people. I don't trust middle eastern muslims (not to kill me) however, and because of that I will never go there.

And Considering the fact that the middle east IS muslim, I consider it the same diffence as being "Islam". So if disliking and holding non-politically correct views on middle eastern muslims is bigoted, then I am, in that context.

I do feel that some muslims are as bad as nazi's. Hitler was widely supported there during WW2, and some muslims still like him even today. However, not all muslims are like that, some are nice ordinary people, some are angry close minded people and some are evil. I am just "bigoted" against a portion of that muslim population.

Again, you're lumping all Muslims in the Middle East together, and believing something which is simply untrue. Islam is a religion, and people can claim to be Muslims without doing everything that Islam preaches, considering that, and the fact that not everyone in the Middle East is Muslim, you cannot equate the Middle East with Islam. In fact, the majority of Muslims in the world do not live in the Middle East.

You were equating Islam however to Nazism, which is different than saying there are some Muslims that are as bad as Nazis. As well, you do realize that many Muslims in the Middle East actually supported the British, and that is how they got independence?

As well, you might want to provide proof that Muslims look up to Hitler?

As for the last bit, you make it sound like there are only "some" Muslims that are good people, implying that many are not. Would you like to explain how the majority are bad? Furthermore, I'd really like it if you stopped clinging to the idea that somehow bigotry can be good, it is, by its definition, irrational and ignorant.

Seeing as the two are arguably the two most important figures in the world's two largest religions, who do you feel was the better person based on their historical accounts?

Well, from wehat is known (or able to be presumed) accepting scriptures as 'fact' in this case:

Jesus, He would've cured/helped me if I needed it, even if I was a hated Samaritan.

Muhammed may have conquered and subjugated, and converted my peoples at the point of a sword.

(Both of theseare assuming I was alive, and regional during either given period).

I pick Jesus....

I'm "bigoted" against some people because of their VIEWPOINT, not any racial characteristics. Face it, everyone is bigoted in some way's, you are bigoted against right-wingers, from what I have seen of your posts.

I don't disagree with you there. Discriminating ideas almost seems like (or maybe is) human nature. Look up a couple posts^ to my response to Sagittarya. I'm glad someone here reads more than one of my posts, I didn't think anybody noticed. I'll state again that in a practical sense "bigotry" is efficient and convenient, so I can't really bash it on the whole. And about right wingers, hmm, you could say I am bigoted against them, I'm bigoted against a lot of things but I'll refrain from listing so I can stay on the forum:p

which may seem to contradict my response to Sagittarya but I separate "truth" and practicality

So far as I know, nobody has killed anyone in the name of Soviestan (yet), which is more than I can say for the others.

One is responsible for christianity, while another is responsible for islam. Therefore Soviestan wins by a huge margin.

Again, you're lumping all Muslims in the Middle East together, and believing something which is simply untrue. Islam is a religion, and people can claim to be Muslims without doing everything that Islam preaches, considering that, and the fact that not everyone in the Middle East is Muslim, you cannot equate the Middle East with Islam. In fact, the majority of Muslims in the world do not live in the Middle East.
Quoted for truth.You were equating Islam however to Nazism, which is different than saying there are some Muslims that are as bad as Nazis. As well, you do realize that many Muslims in the Middle East actually supported the British, and that is how they got independence?

As well, you might want to provide proof that Muslims look up to Hitler?This is a classic case of Godwin's Law, in my humble opinion. Nazism and Islam has nothing to do with each other. As for the last bit, you make it sound like there are only "some" Muslims that are good people, implying that many are not. Would you like to explain how the majority are bad? Furthermore, I'd really like it if you stopped clinging to the idea that somehow bigotry can be good, it is, by its definition, irrational and ignorant. The problem here is, I believe, people are confusing Sharia with Islam. I'm not a Muslim (although my ID card asserts otherwise - never got around requesting a change, don't need to actually, I don't care what it says) or believe in any religion whatsoever. Some people (like any other narrow minded believer) would argue with/get mad at/amazed at me if I said "I'm an atheist" around here but that would be human nature for you - there are openly gay people I know, there are atheists and deists who speak up their beliefs (or non-beliefs for that matter) openly and nobody's getting stoned or anything. And, yes, about 90 percent of the people who live here are Muslims :)

It is like Christianity or any other religion really. Just think of a country where the Church is the ultimate power commanding both the state and military, you get Sharia under another title. It has nothing to do with Islam per se - it is a poor choice of regime, in my humble opinion, but it IS a regime, not a religion.

Mohammed's teachings do not directly involve Sharia routines - of course, religions have a very bad habit of turning people into zealots but I don't think "liberating" holy lands in the name of a God is unique to any of them - Jihads are waged in every turn of the human history and I don't believe the prophets are the ones to blame.

Anyways, I digress, in my first post no less :)

Cheerio!

Quoted for truth.This is a classic case of Godwin's Law, in my humble opinion. Nazism and Islam has nothing to do with each other. The problem here is, I believe, people are confusing Sharia with Islam. I'm not a Muslim (although my ID card asserts otherwise - never got around requesting a change, don't need to actually, I don't care what it says) or believe in any religion whatsoever. Some people (like any other narrow minded believer) would argue with/get mad at/amazed at me if I said "I'm an atheist" around here but that would be human nature for you - there are openly gay people I know, there are atheists and deists who speak up their beliefs (or non-beliefs for that matter) openly and nobody's getting stoned or anything. And, yes, about 90 percent of the people who live here are Muslims :)

It is like Christianity or any other religion really. Just think of a country where the Church is the ultimate power commanding both the state and military, you get Sharia under another title. It has nothing to do with Islam per se - it is a poor choice of regime, in my humble opinion, but it IS a regime, not a religion.

Mohammed's teachings do not directly involve Sharia routines - of course, religions have a very bad habit of turning people into zealots but I don't think "liberating" holy lands in the name of a God is unique to any of them - Jihads are waged in every turn of the human history and I don't believe the prophets are the ones to blame.

Anyways, I digress, in my first post no less :)

Cheerio!

I approve of this first post.

Well, since there're zero contemporary accounts for the existence of Yeshua ben Yosef, there's no reason to believe he ever existed. As such, Mohammad would have to win the comparison.

I approve of this first post. Some will, some won't, some will actually think I'm a "Muslim-hugger" disguised as an atheist, some will think I'm too detached or "soft" and some will find what I'm saying reflecting their own thoughts. This is and will be the case with everything that's human, though, "tree" cannot mean the same thing to you as it means to me - how can a complicated problem space such as this one analyzed in the same manner by two different people?

Alright, this is not off topic actually, what I'm saying is "Jesus gave us Easter so my vote's hands down on him" is the epitome of the best possible answer to the original question :) No one can detach themselves from personal feelings answering such a question. I consider myself not only an unbeliever but also against such beliefs but I automatically voted for Mohammad, go figure :)

Anyways, thanks mate :)

Cheerio!

Why can´t some people accept that both men were amazing and did great things for their respective religions?

Okay....I'm more likely to accept, though, that both their religions are crap and have fuelled most of the violence of western civilization.

True. But you can´t blame the prophets for what the followers have done after they´ve gone. Islam and Christianity are based upon the teaching of both men, but the institutions that have spawned from these teachings are the ones to blame for the violence in Western and Eastern civilizations, not Jesus or Mohammed.

Why can´t some people accept that both men were amazing and did great things for their respective religions?


Okay....I'm more likely to accept, though, that both their religions are crap and have fuelled most of the violence of western civilization.

Okay....I'm more likely to accept, though, that both their religions are crap and have fuelled most of the violence of western civilization.

Thats a severly terrible analysis of history and human behaviour.

By your accounts the Romans should've conquered no one, the Indians (of India) should never have made war, and the Huns shouldn't have migrated throughout almost all of Asia in a killing spree....

Humans will war with each other regardless of religion, or politics, or any other measure. This is why war has pervaded all times, and cultures.

Your post is a pretty gigantic fail....

True. But you can´t blame the prophets for what the followers have done after they´ve gone. Islam and Christianity are based upon the teaching of both men, but the institutions that have spawned from these teachings are the ones to blame for the violence in Western and Eastern civilizations, not Jesus or Mohammed.

Sure you can, just like you can blame two religions for something that is clearly a trans-human trait (warfare), and is common in every human society.

That or you can look at both humanity, and religion from a reasonable perspective... in which case you're completely right.

True. But you can´t blame the prophets for what the followers have done after they´ve gone. Islam and Christianity are based upon the teaching of both men, but the institutions that have spawned from these teachings are the ones to blame for the violence in Western and Eastern civilizations, not Jesus or Mohammed.

I see where you're coming from. But for those of us living 2000 or 1300 years, respectively, divorced from those teachings, how meaningful is it to distinguish between the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed and the institutions they spawned? Marx and Rousseau weren't really responsible for Stalin or Robespierre, either, but both drew inspiration from their insights. And we in the 21st century have to deal with the consequences of their imperfectly intepreted philosophy.

Thats a severly terrible analysis of history and human behaviour.

By your accounts the Romans should've conquered no one, the Indians (of India) should never have made war, and the Huns shouldn't have migrated throughout almost all of Asia in a killing spree....

Humans will war with each other regardless of religion, or politics, or any other measure. This is why war has pervaded all times, and cultures.

Your post is a pretty gigantic fail....

Is your argument that there's some kind of point to the centuries of animosity between Muslims and Christians? Because if there is, I'm dying to know.

Again, you're lumping all Muslims in the Middle East together, and believing something which is simply untrue. Islam is a religion, and people can claim to be Muslims without doing everything that Islam preaches, considering that, and the fact that not everyone in the Middle East is Muslim, you cannot equate the Middle East with Islam. In fact, the majority of Muslims in the world do not live in the Middle East.

You were equating Islam however to Nazism, which is different than saying there are some Muslims that are as bad as Nazis. As well, you do realize that many Muslims in the Middle East actually supported the British, and that is how they got independence?

As well, you might want to provide proof that Muslims look up to Hitler?

As for the last bit, you make it sound like there are only "some" Muslims that are good people, implying that many are not. Would you like to explain how the majority are bad? Furthermore, I'd really like it if you stopped clinging to the idea that somehow bigotry can be good, it is, by its definition, irrational and ignorant.

Your post is so big it's going to be hard to coherantly respond to. :p Anyway, you are being bigoted against my view, explain that. And here ya' go muslims who supportedhttp://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543
hitler:



That's all I am going to answer for now, so if you have any more issues, repost them.

I don't disagree with you there. Discriminating ideas almost seems like (or maybe is) human nature. Look up a couple posts^ to my response to Sagittarya. I'm glad someone here reads more than one of my posts, I didn't think anybody noticed. I'll state again that in a practical sense "bigotry" is efficient and convenient, so I can't really bash it on the whole. And about right wingers, hmm, you could say I am bigoted against them, I'm bigoted against a lot of things but I'll refrain from listing so I can stay on the forum:p

which may seem to contradict my response to Sagittarya but I separate "truth" and practicality

Glad we agree. :p

Some will, some won't, some will actually think I'm a "Muslim-hugger" disguised as an atheist, some will think I'm too detached or "soft" and some will find what I'm saying reflecting their own thoughts. This is and will be the case with everything that's human, though, "tree" cannot mean the same thing to you as it means to me - how can a complicated problem space such as this one analyzed in the same manner by two different people?

Alright, this is not off topic actually, what I'm saying is "Jesus gave us Easter so my vote's hands down on him" is the epitome of the best possible answer to the original question :) No one can detach themselves from personal feelings answering such a question. I consider myself not only an unbeliever but also against such beliefs but I automatically voted for Mohammad, go figure :)

Anyways, thanks mate :)

Cheerio!

Not me. It's your right to an opinion and if you like to live with mulsims (muslims doh!) , more power to you! It still however, wouldn't convince me to live around a lot of muslims, I want to keep my head.

Well, since there're zero contemporary accounts for the existence of Yeshua ben Yosef, there's no reason to believe he ever existed. As such, Mohammad would have to win the comparison.

Even if accounts of Christ were, in fact, either exagerated or fabricated, Christ rules. He can turn water into booze. Plus, there's Easter and Christmas, days celebrating Christ's supposed ressurection and birth respectively. Auto-win. Zombie-bartender ftw.

Not me. It's your right to an opinion and if you like to live with mulsims (muslims doh!) , more power to you! It still however, wouldn't convince me to live around a lot of muslims, I want to keep my head.Uh, no one is beheaded in my country mate, really, no one :) We don't even have "head chopping serial killers" and this is more than I can say for some really civilized metropolises where there are virtually no Muslims. You really are confusing Sharia and Islam I guess...

It is not "by choice" per se, by the way, I was born here, I was raised a Muslim by my grandparents and I decided I don't believe in what they believe at an early age - and nobody protested (much :)). I'm 30 and I still have a head resting on my shoulders. This should give you an idea maybe?

Cheerio!

Uh, no one is beheaded in my country mate, really, no one :) We don't even have "head chopping serial killers" and this is more than I can say for some really civilized metropolises where there are virtually no Muslims. You really are confusing Sharia and Islam I guess...

It is not "by choice" per se, by the way, I was born here, I was raised a Muslim by my grandparents and I decided I don't believe in what they believe at an early age - and nobody protested (much :)). I'm 30 and I still have a head resting on my shoulders. This should give you an idea maybe?

Cheerio!

Just make "cheerio" your sig and be done with it!

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.He didn't, and it's the same.

He didn't, and it's the same.

you have no proof he didn't, while on the other hand there are dozens of gospels saying he did, not only that but they documented his life.

you have no proof he didn't, while on the other hand there are dozens of gospels saying he did, not only that but they documented his life.
Don't do this. You really, really don't want to do this.
I'll amend my statement to be more precise:
There were lots and lots of folks named Jesus, and oddly enough, people in this day and age, in the common sense, have little to no awareness of their existence, with very little difference made one way or the other.
The only thing THEY'VE HEARD ABOUT is the amalgamation of Horus/Mithras/other.

Just make "cheerio" your sig and be done with it!So, the only thing you found remotely interesting in all those things I've said is "Cheerio?"

I though my point of view and comparatively extensive knowledge of Islam, Mohammad and what the States call Middle East would contribute but hey, I guess your mileage varies...

Cheerio!

So, the only thing you found remotely interesting in all those things I've said is "Cheerio?"

I though my point of view and comparatively extensive knowledge of Islam, Mohammad and what the States call Middle East would contribute but hey, I guess your mileage varies...

Cheerio!

Just didn't feel like saying anything else. I'm not to judge whether what you say is important or not. And as for your desired ego stroke, you do have knowledge on the subject, I admit and recognize.

Your post is so big it's going to be hard to coherantly respond to. :p Anyway, you are being bigoted against my view, explain that. And here ya' go muslims who supportedhttp://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543
hitler:



That's all I am going to answer for now, so if you have any more issues, repost them.

Most of the post was ethics, but lets drop that for now since you seem to not have any coherent ones.

-First of all, let's not pretend that your source is unbiased. It's called militantislammonitor, so obviously not neutral pov.

-Furthermore, the article isn't written in a particularly scholarly fashion.

For instance (some captions for pictures on the site):

"Chillin' with his homey, Adolph:"

"They even had a cute little flag:"

"Ever seen Storm Troopers bowing to Mecca? Now you have:"

-Third, the article doesn't seem to provide any sources. I could just edit a wiki page or make a website and claim it's evidence, doesn't make it so.

-Fourth, at best it can only prove a few things.

1. That some Muslims did not like Jews mass immigrating to Palestine.

2. That some of these Muslims were willing to have an alliance with Nazis to to remove the Jews.

-Ultimately, this means all it really proves is that a few Muslims felt it pragmatic to support Nazis in their supposed struggle with Jews.

As well, this does not prove that Islam is like Nazism. For one, Islam does not preach anti-Semitism, rather, as a whole, if we look at history, Islam has been far more tolerant of Jews than Christianity has. As well, at best it proves that a few Muslims were anti-semites. There are anti-semites in every group in the world however, so ultimately, this is completely void of meaning.

In the end, your source, if proven valid, proves that some guy named Husseini hated Jews and sided with Hitler. You've yet to prove that Islam = Nazism. Next time read articles before you use them as sources.

there are no better or worse persons. jesus and mohammid both channeled the same god. as did every other revealer of major organized beliefs. the many that came before either of them, the twin revelation the took place more then 150 years ago, and those which in another thousand years will fallow them.

this doesn't mean the fallowers of any of them know half as much as they or their priesthoods try to pretend. there are of course differences but the are not a mater of superiority/inferiority in any way.

all in time become twisted in their popular misunderstanding.

=^^=
.../\...

Jesus could walk on water and then turn it into wine if he wanted to. I want friends like that.

(actually I don't know enough about mohammed to compare)
With regards to Jesus turning the water into wine.
In those days when you where invited to any big function you would never know if you would get food and drink so most people took their own to make sure they got something to eat and drink.
So picture what it must have been like.
As the bread and water was passed around people refused it because they had their own food and drink already.
When the plate got back to the head table it it still had bread and water on it yet everyone had had food and wine.
So it looked like a miracle when in fact it was just that everyone had taken their own food

And at the time he lived it was considered morally acceptable both in the middle east and in Europe to marry girls of a very young age.

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, can't play the Relativism Card because they firmly believe that morality is objective, God-given and unchanging.

all the options are equally sucky.

The "I don't hate any person, any belief, sexual orienation... but I hate Nazis" is stupid and flawed. A person who thinks bigotry is wrong should not pick and choose who to be they can be a bigot to. Those who value the concept of free speech must be upheld would argue that surpressing ideas is a dangerous thing and can bite you in the backside later on.

I fail to see the link between hating Nazis and Nazism and wanting to deny their right to free speech: I think that Nazism is a sick ideology and that Nazis are scum, but I'll still defend their right to speak as long as it doesn't cross the line into incitement to violence, slander, etc.

Many people seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'freedom to speak' and 'freedom from criticism of their speech'.

no comments ... according to moi ... both Jesus (PBUH) and Mohammed are great people, "UNCOMPARABLE"

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, can't play the Relativism Card because they firmly believe that morality is objective, God-given and unchanging.That, my friend, within the context of marrying little girls no less, was the nagging little issue with the religion that made me think there was something wrong with dogmas of any kind.

@Kontor
Sorry if I seemed to be fishing for an ego stroke - that certainly was not my intent. I do like attention, approval and recognition but this was not it and I believe my not-so-clever use of the word "extensive" ruined the point I was trying to make - I think I should work more on my English.

Anyways,

Cheerio!

Most of the post was ethics, but lets drop that for now since you seem to not have any coherent ones.

-First of all, let's not pretend that your source is unbiased. It's called militantislammonitor, so obviously not neutral pov.

-Furthermore, the article isn't written in a particularly scholarly fashion.

For instance (some captions for pictures on the site):

"Chillin' with his homey, Adolph:"

"They even had a cute little flag:"

"Ever seen Storm Troopers bowing to Mecca? Now you have:"

-Third, the article doesn't seem to provide any sources. I could just edit a wiki page or make a website and claim it's evidence, doesn't make it so.

-Fourth, at best it can only prove a few things.

1. That some Muslims did not like Jews mass immigrating to Palestine.

2. That some of these Muslims were willing to have an alliance with Nazis to to remove the Jews.

-Ultimately, this means all it really proves is that a few Muslims felt it pragmatic to support Nazis in their supposed struggle with Jews.

As well, this does not prove that Islam is like Nazism. For one, Islam does not preach anti-Semitism, rather, as a whole, if we look at history, Islam has been far more tolerant of Jews than Christianity has. As well, at best it proves that a few Muslims were anti-semites. There are anti-semites in every group in the world however, so ultimately, this is completely void of meaning.

In the end, your source, if proven valid, proves that some guy named Husseini hated Jews and sided with Hitler. You've yet to prove that Islam = Nazism. Next time read articles before you use them as sources.

You took a whole lotta words to say that the site was to unprofessional. But anyway MR. talky, i'll get ya another site. http://www.themiddleeastnow/musnazi.html


Sorry, I link doesn't work:(, but you can still go to the site.

That, my friend, within the context of marrying little girls no less, was the nagging little issue with the religion that made me think there was something wrong with dogmas of any kind.

@Kontor
Sorry if I seemed to be fishing for an ego stroke - that certainly was not my intent. I do like attention, approval and recognition but this was not it and I believe my not-so-clever use of the word "extensive" ruined the point I was trying to make - I think I should work more on my English.

Anyways,

Cheerio!

It's all cool. :cool:

This is like the distilled essence of all pick-the-lesser-of-two-evils questions.

"Which rapist was a better person?" Sheesh.

Is Jesus really that bad? I mean is essentially preaching moderate pacifism, love and peace, whilst having very vague Jewish connections, the same as being a rapist?

I really don't get it.

Although both became commercialized, I still like Mohammed. I find the stories about him (and the story of Islam in general) much more interesting than those about Jesus.

They're even better than Moses', I think...:p

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

Consider this,

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

If Mohammed hadn't lived, everything would be different.

Read your history, please. The conflict between Christianity and Islam has pretty much been the history the Western world since El Cid helped push them out of Spain, since Vlad Tepes pushed them out of the Carpathians, since multiple Popes demanded crusades against them.

If you want more - well let's see - the Muslims invented the zero and algebra.
The Muslims developed the basis for modern medicine. The zero, algebra and modern medicine.

I don't particularly like modern Islam, but I'd be a fool to ignore history just because of that.

You forgot the option "None, because they do not exist"

Reading is fun!

You and UB are essentially making one of the most bigoted statements on NSG I have ever seen.

Firstly, Jesus did not want to force people into his beliefs, it was very clear that following him was a voluntary thing.

99.9% of all Christians want non believers to be Christians, therefore by saying Jesus is as bad as a rapist for wanting others to follow him, 99.99% of all Christians are as bad as a rapist. Incredibly bigoted, no?

You forgot the option "None, because they do not exist"

I think we can be pretty certain they both existed. Anyway that wasnt the question, it was working on the assumption they both existed. Jesus = Good, Modern Christian Church = bad. Denying the Catholic church, or any other church for that fact, is not rejecting God, but rejecting money grabbing thieves.

Most of the post was ethics, but lets drop that for now since you seem to not have any coherent ones.

-First of all, let's not pretend that your source is unbiased. It's called militantislammonitor, so obviously not neutral pov.

-Furthermore, the article isn't written in a particularly scholarly fashion.

For instance (some captions for pictures on the site):

"Chillin' with his homey, Adolph:"

"They even had a cute little flag:"

"Ever seen Storm Troopers bowing to Mecca? Now you have:"

-Third, the article doesn't seem to provide any sources. I could just edit a wiki page or make a website and claim it's evidence, doesn't make it so.

-Fourth, at best it can only prove a few things.

1. That some Muslims did not like Jews mass immigrating to Palestine.

2. That some of these Muslims were willing to have an alliance with Nazis to to remove the Jews.

-Ultimately, this means all it really proves is that a few Muslims felt it pragmatic to support Nazis in their supposed struggle with Jews.

As well, this does not prove that Islam is like Nazism. For one, Islam does not preach anti-Semitism, rather, as a whole, if we look at history, Islam has been far more tolerant of Jews than Christianity has. As well, at best it proves that a few Muslims were anti-semites. There are anti-semites in every group in the world however, so ultimately, this is completely void of meaning.

In the end, your source, if proven valid, proves that some guy named Husseini hated Jews and sided with Hitler. You've yet to prove that Islam = Nazism. Next time read articles before you use them as sources.

You took a whole lotta words to say that the site was to unprofessional. But anyway MR. talky, i'll get ya another site. http://www.themiddleeastnow/musnazi.html


Sorry, I link doesn't work:(, but you can still go to the site.

Me saying the site was unprofessional was just the first bit, perhaps you'd like to acuatlly read my post as above. As for the link, you're right it doesn't work, I still don't understand how I go to the site.

What's up with people and loving old dirty smelly semites? It's really weird...kind of creepy.

Is Jesus really that bad? I mean is essentially preaching moderate pacifism, love and peace, whilst having very vague Jewish connections, the same as being a rapist?

I really don't get it.

Those things aren't what Bottle's talking about. If I'm interpreting her correctly, she's referring to what's called "slave morality", if I'm remembering my Nietzsche accurately.

Those things aren't what Bottle's talking about. If I'm interpreting her correctly, she's referring to what's called "slave morality", if I'm remembering my Nietzsche accurately.

I think she was talking about the apparent lack of meaningful consent in the Virgin Birth, but I could be wrong.

I think we can be pretty certain they both existed.

There is a HUGE topic on the historicity of Jesus here. The facts seem to indicate he indeed was made up , but are not conclusive.

Mohammed otoh most certainly existed. He made enough of an impression on contemporaries to be mentioned in documents, created offspring and left a corpse. That of course however does not mean that the stories of his life are factual as well or that he really was a prophet.

There is a HUGE topic on the historicity of Jesus here. The facts seem to indicate he indeed was made up , but are not conclusive.

Mohammed otoh most certainly existed. He made enough of an impression on contemporaries to be mentioned in documents, created offspring and left a corpse. That of course however does not mean that the stories of his life are factual as well or that he really was a prophet.

tbh the fact that Christianity exists at all is a pretty good indicator he existed. A lie as big as that wud have been found out and distributed long time ago by now. btw see the Turin shroud

This is a pointless question. Christians worship Jesus as a god, believing he was divine. Muslims revere Mohammad as a prophet, who was not divine but received divine inspiration. For that matter, Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, as well.

The Bible offers almost no information about who was, whereas there is at least a pretty thorough historic detailing of Mohammad's life. On what do you make any sort of comparison?

You're talking apples and oranges. Surely you have better things to do with your time?

tbh the fact that Christianity exists at all is a pretty good indicator he existed. A lie as big as that wud have been found out and distributed long time ago by now.

Why ?
And read the topic. All those points were adressed there ;)

12 and 13 was, nine isn't. And the source I read said 7...

Sources fail to agree on the subject of her age.

In regards to the OP: why not both?

Although its a tie between "Jesus" and "Both" for me, seeing as how the Prophets unfourtunate circumstnaces gave him a couple things to talk about violence that can be absurdley taken out of context and twisted......

But their both good. Its the faiths that are orgainized that are bad

Why ?
And read the topic. All those points were adressed there ;)

Well its a complete myth the fact that the Catholic church comfortably hid lies and so forth. True they tried. But they never succeeded. Any religious heresy simply was rejected by the middle class but for poorer people it was an opportunity for recognition. e.g Lollardy and John Wycliff, Martin Luther and so forth. If there was any evidence that disproved Jesus, Jesus wud merely be a footnote today, no-one would recognise him. That is what I was trying to say.

If there was any evidence that disproved Jesus

Nono - not disproved. There is just no evidence that he was not made up. Like Hercules. Or Loki. Or Atum-Ra.

Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, can't play the Relativism Card because they firmly believe that morality is objective, God-given and unchanging.

As I recall the Old testament, New testament, and the Koran say nothing specific about the age at which one is allowed to marry. Therefore it is up to law of the land the Jew, Christian, or Muslim lives in to determine the age of consent and not the morality prescribed by their religion.

Nono - not disproved. There is just no evidence that he was not made up. Like Hercules. Or Loki. Or Atum-Ra.

But there is evidence to say he does exist. e.g the Turin shroud

As I recall the Old testament, New testament, and the Koran say nothing specific about the age at which one is allowed to marry. Therefore it is up to law of the land the Jew, Christian, or Muslim lives in to determine the age of consent and not the morality prescribed by their religion.

Fair enough. But does that not mean that Mohammed is NOT an example to follow ?

You and UB are essentially making one of the most bigoted statements on NSG I have ever seen.

Firstly, Jesus did not want to force people into his beliefs, it was very clear that following him was a voluntary thing.

Yep, according to him you can voluntarily follow him or you can voluntarily burn in hell for all eternity.

But there is evidence to say he does exist. e.g the Turin shroud

The last known attempt to date the shroud led to the conclusion if was made in about 1300 AD. The Church then stored it away, forbade further testing and announced that the test was done on a part that was not part of the original shroud.
Not really convincing, is it.

The last known attempt to date the shroud led to the conclusion if was made in about 1300 AD. The Church then stored it away, forbid further testing and announced that the test was done on a part that was not part of the original shroud.
Not really convincing, is it.

The carbon test was very faulty. They took that sample from the corner which had been handled by hundreds of popes for hundreds of years when they hung it out of the window. Any mickey mouse scientist could tell you that this could distort any carbon dating test by hundreds if not thousands of years. And the Church hasnt stored it away, you can go and see it now if you want. And there is also a seperate cloth that is supposed to have covered the head of Jesus, in Spain. Two seperate places and two seperate artefacts, but the blood on that cloth was the same as the blood on the shroud. And scientists have identified that the person the cloth covered would have been in mid thirties and would have had a beard - the description of Jesus. If the person in the shroud is Jesus, that would generally be called "evidence" I think. Or is it not evidence just because its inconvenient? :p

Fair enough. But does that not mean that Mohammed is NOT an example to follow ?

I understand Martin Luther King had extra-marital affairs. Unlike Mohammed's young bride extra marital affairs were not considered to be perfectly moral behavior for his place and time. Do his affairs make Martin Luther King not an example to follow?

I understand Martin Luther King had extra-marital affairs. Unlike Mohammed's young bride extra marital affairs were not considered to be perfectly moral behavior for his place and time. Do his affairs make Martin Luther King not an example to follow?

In that area ? Certainly.
So - does the same hold true for Mohammed, Jesus and all other religious figures ?

Or is it not evidence just because its inconvenient? :p

No - just because because it is too general. Thousands of bearded people died.
Say I would claim that the image on the shroud is in fact Flavus Domus. Can you prove me wrong ?

Yep, according to him you can voluntarily follow him or you can voluntarily burn in hell for all eternity.

If you're an atheist then hell does not exist, but even if hell were to exist, Jesus doesn't want you to go there. Jesus doesn't explicitly talk about hell anyway, certainly not in the 'burning' sense.

No - just because because it is too general. Thousands of bearded people died.
Say I would claim that the image on the shroud is in fact Flavus Domus. Can you prove me wrong ?

Course I cant, but then what constitutes evidence? Technically anything we think we know can just be dashed, nothings proven

Course I cant, but then what constitutes evidence? Technically anything we think we know can just be dashed, nothings proven

Exactly. And for extraorrdinary claims, we need extraordinary evidence.
I daresay Jesus, son of God, is pretty extraordinary, yes ?

Exactly. And for extraorrdinary claims, we need extraordinary evidence.
I daresay Jesus, son of God, is pretty extraordinary, yes ?

not even extraordinay, subjective is a better word

I understand Martin Luther King had extra-marital affairs. Unlike Mohammed's young bride extra marital affairs were not considered to be perfectly moral behavior for his place and time. Do his affairs make Martin Luther King not an example to follow?

Martin Luther King was never meant to be an infallible divine prophet.

all the options are equally sucky.

oh come on, that Soviestan guy is not too bad;)

not even extraordinay, subjective is a better word

Fair enough.
Aside, here is the big, BIG thread I talked about earlier:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783

Do ignore the "one post and run" people.

And you still havent answered my question, what constitutes evidence?

I think we can be pretty certain they both existed. Anyway that wasnt the question, it was working on the assumption they both existed. Jesus = Good, Modern Christian Church = bad. Denying the Catholic church, or any other church for that fact, is not rejecting God, but rejecting money grabbing thieves.

No, denying the Catholic Church is denying Christ. He established the Church through St. Peter. It is impossible to separate the Church from Christ. "do this in rememberence of me" Ring a bell?

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

Consider this,

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

Rubbish, Jesus did change MOST of western Europe, and much of Europe adopted Christianity as their religion, but Mohammed had a masive effect in the Middle East and further afield and we are seeing the effects all the time in todays world. Both have had a massive effect on the development of todays world. For better or worse, I leave you to decide.

No, denying the Catholic Church is denying Christ. He established the Church through St. Peter. It is impossible to separate the Church from Christ. "do this in rememberence of me" Ring a bell?

Dont be ridiculous, the Catholic Church is just a bunch of old men who are in it for the money and power. Saying the pope is directly descended from St Peter is just a joke. The true meaning of Christ, and the saints has been completely lost. Distorted by people abusing the Church

And you still havent answered my question, what constitutes evidence?

Offspring or a body would be good, but those are obviously out. Contemporary writers that mention him would be very nice. His image on art made in those days ? Wonderful. And a consistent life story would add credibility.

In fact, everything historians call "evidence".
Well, and the Heavens opening and God saying "HE EXISTED" would be a definite hint of course.

Offspring would be good. Contemporary writers that mention him would be very nice. His image on art made in those days ? Wonderful. And a consistent life story would add credibility.

In fact, everything historians call "evidence".
Well, and the Heavens opening and God saying "HE EXISTED" would be a definite hint of course.

Thats just foolishness, you STILL havent answered my question

All of these supposed atheists are kissing up to Islam and defending it and it's actions. I wonder if they are so atheistic after all....

Thats just foolishness, you STILL havent answered my question

Eeehm, yes I did. Only the last sentence was not serious.

Eeehm, yes I did. Only the last sentence was not serious.

No I didnt mean in this context, I meant what constitutes any evidence, period. What constitutes evidence itself is subjective!

btw see the Turin shroud

The Shroud is known to be a forgery: the proportions are completely wrong.

As I recall the Old testament, New testament, and the Koran say nothing specific about the age at which one is allowed to marry. Therefore it is up to law of the land the Jew, Christian, or Muslim lives in to determine the age of consent and not the morality prescribed by their religion.

So? The fact that Mohammed is portrayed as marrying a child shows, if we grant the Islamic doctrines of Prophetic Perfection and Objective Morality, that there not necessarily anything wrong with doing the same. The New Testament isn't a great example as I think the age of Mary at the time of the Virgin Birth has been estimated at twelve to fourteen by some scholars, although this is based on fairly flimsy evidence.

And there is also a seperate cloth that is supposed to have covered the head of Jesus, in Spain. Two seperate places and two seperate artefacts, but the blood on that cloth was the same as the blood on the shroud. And scientists have identified that the person the cloth covered would have been in mid thirties and would have had a beard - the description of Jesus. If the person in the shroud is Jesus, that would generally be called "evidence" I think. Or is it not evidence just because its inconvenient? :p

Firstly, source on the 'same blood' claim? It's not even been proved that the shroud is stained with real blood and other possibilities have been suggested.

Secondly, why do you assume that Jesus was in his mid-thirties at the time of his death? Luke merely refers to him being 'about thirty' at the commencement of his ministry, so he could have been anywhere between later twenties and later thirties by the time of his death, three years later. There's also the matter of John's gospel which implies that Jesus was in his forties ("He's not even fifty and he claims to have seen Abraham!")

No, denying the Catholic Church is denying Christ. He established the Church through St. Peter. It is impossible to separate the Church from Christ. "do this in rememberence of me" Ring a bell?

Nonsense. The Gospel of Mark (the first gospel to be written) is extremely hostile towards Peter and, even if it is accepted that he was given special authority in his lifetime, there's no indication that this authority was to be passed on to his titular descendants. The word 'church' (ekklesia in Greek) is never used in the New Testament to signify any kind of institution, only a group of believers.

All of these supposed atheists are kissing up to Islam and defending it and it's actions. I wonder if they are so atheistic after all....

May I direct you towards my posts regarding Mohammed's marriage to Aisha?

No I didnt mean in this context, I meant what constitutes any evidence, period. What constitutes evidence itself is subjective!

Not really. Historians have a pretty sound methodology for classifying what is and isn't evidence, how good it is, and what it's evidence for. Alma Mater gave some examples of what would be classed as evidence; the strict definition of evidence isn't relevant to this discussion at the moment.

With regards to Jesus turning the water into wine.
In those days when you where invited to any big function you would never know if you would get food and drink so most people took their own to make sure they got something to eat and drink.
So picture what it must have been like.
As the bread and water was passed around people refused it because they had their own food and drink already.
When the plate got back to the head table it it still had bread and water on it yet everyone had had food and wine.
So it looked like a miracle when in fact it was just that everyone had taken their own food
:)

The carbon test was very faulty. They took that sample from the corner which had been handled by hundreds of popes for hundreds of years when they hung it out of the window. Any mickey mouse scientist could tell you that this could distort any carbon dating test by hundreds if not thousands of years. And the Church hasnt stored it away, you can go and see it now if you want. And there is also a seperate cloth that is supposed to have covered the head of Jesus, in Spain. Two seperate places and two seperate artefacts, but the blood on that cloth was the same as the blood on the shroud. And scientists have identified that the person the cloth covered would have been in mid thirties and would have had a beard - the description of Jesus. If the person in the shroud is Jesus, that would generally be called "evidence" I think. Or is it not evidence just because its inconvenient? :p

Friggin´ Turin shroud. The Church came to the conclusion that it was a fake. Veronica, who´s name actually means ¨Vera Ikon¨, the true icon, was a fictional character from Medieval times. She never apeared in the Bible. And this shorud, from recent studies, was dated from the Middle Ages.

Link (http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm).

As for the sudarium (http://www.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/sudarium.htm) held in Spain, in my hometown of Oviedo, since the 8th. century, no conclusive evidence has beet found except that the blood stains in the cloth appear to be from the same individual. Is it Christ? Who knows.

I think she was talking about the apparent lack of meaningful consent in the Virgin Birth, but I could be wrong.

Well, for Jesus, yes, that's what she was talking about.

Well, for Jesus, yes, that's what she was talking about.

Well, that's stupid then.
First, the stupid objection: A deity getting someone pregnant without having sex is not technically rape.
Besides that:
Bottle, you can either have Jesus = God (in which case you definitely are not an atheist in any reasonable sense of the word) or you can have Jesus != God (in which case Jesus did not rape Mary).

Well, that's stupid then.
First, the stupid objection: A deity getting someone pregnant without having sex is not technically rape.

Not technically, no.
Then again, thanks to the wonders of modern medicine I am quite capable of impregnating a woman without having sex with her. Is it fine if I do so without her consent ?

Besides that:
Bottle, you can either have Jesus = God (in which case you definitely are not an atheist in any reasonable sense of the word) or you can have Jesus != God (in which case Jesus did not rape Mary).

Bottles own beliefs are irrelevant here. The Christian story says that Jesus is God and that God impregnated Mary.

Abraham without whom neither religion could exist

I chose Rasulullah. Nabi Muhammad SAW was more influencial than Nabi Isa AS.

Well, at least Nabi Isa will return at the end of the time, to slay Dajjal.

Wow. This poll is...to put it simply...ridiculous.
How can one even attempt to compare these two men? The information we have is based on anecdotal evidence from the gospels and the qu'ran (sp?).
Now, as the Hebrew Tanakh has already been equivocally proven (!!!) to be full of inaccuracies, anachronisms, and to put it simply, lies, how can we go about comparing these two prophets. They are from two completely different time periods, two different situations, and received completely different revelations from God.
Hell, we don't even have proof that both of these guys existed!

Shucks...good job poll creator
:headbang:

Well, for Jesus, yes, that's what she was talking about.

And yet that argument is totally destroyed by this post:

I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and presume you refer to the Immaculate Conception. (Which I won't bother to refute because the very statement is non-sequitur, if I guess right.)

...which, as an atheist, you don't believe in. Therefore, you're arguing based on a false premise from your own point of view.

Abraham without whom neither religion could exist

And has caused us no end of grief.... Nice one, Abe...

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

Consider this,

If Jesus hadn't lived, everything would be different.

Prove it? how do you know another religtion would not have merely filled the void?

explain on what style of religious diety the Soviestan is so i may know my voting candidates better

I know nothing of Soviestan so it has to be the better option.:fluffle:

Is Jesus really that bad? I mean is essentially preaching moderate pacifism, love and peace, whilst having very vague Jewish connections, the same as being a rapist?

I really don't get it.

Amen.

Jesus is LORD! and if you want to know why there is a reason.Like how come what Jesus said is coming true and everything that the muhammed said isn't.Jesus told about the prophecys of the End Times and every one is coming true.Jesus is coming back to get His followers and take us up to heaven to be with God.All you who aren't Christians will have to stay on earth through 7 years of darkness,pain,suffering,death,sadness,sickness, and you will miss your cousins who were about 8-9 years old.In fact every one who doesn't really know how to make a choice in religion will be taken up to heaven.

:)GO JESUS!:)

C'mon, own up, whose puppet are you?
You;ve GOT to be a joke.

Is Jesus really that bad? I mean is essentially preaching moderate pacifism, love and peace, whilst having very vague Jewish connections, the same as being a rapist?

I really don't get it.

You don't get metaphors? You can't be Christian, then :p ;)

And yet that argument is totally destroyed by this post:

...and that post is utterly destroyed by reading what Bottle actually wrote:


According to Christian doctrine, at least one.

To be fair, though, the only real information I have to go on about either fellow is the corresponding religious texts for each faith. So I can only judge the individuals based on the accounts written by their own followers, which are bound to be at least somewhat skewed. I'm just assuming they are accurate for the sake of argument, since otherwise the question would be as meaningless as asking whether Bill Everyman Of Aramethia (circa 0 CE) is a better guy than Dale Someguy of Palestine (circa 600 CE).
Not in any Christian doctrine I've ever heard of.

Edit: I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and presume you refer to the Immaculate Conception. (Which I won't bother to refute because the very statement is non-sequitur, if I guess right.)

...which, as an atheist, you don't believe in. Therefore, you're arguing based on a false premise from your own point of view.

Abraham without whom neither religion could exist

Can you even prove that Abraham existed?

Why isnt the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the poll? May you all be touched by his noodley appendage!


http://www.venganza.org/

Muhammad was involved in the killing of a tonnnn of people. You can't really say that he was a better person than Jesus.

Can you even prove that Abraham existed?

Can you even prove that King George existed?

No, not really... but we have papers of accounts that talk about King George and his actions. The same is true with Abraham.

KP1;13513304']Can you even prove that King George existed?

Which one? There are people still alive today who saw the last King George of Britain.

KP1;13513304']No, not really... but we have papers of accounts that talk about King George and his actions. The same is true with Abraham.

As far as I know we have portraits of all the King Georges of England, painted by people who were actually there. Even the Torah doesn't claim to have been written by a contemporary of Abraham, and the parts describing Abraham can't have been written before the (supposed) conquest of Canaan, because at one point Abraham is described as pursuing an army 'unto Dan', and the town only got that name after it was (supposedly) captured by the Tribe of Dan. This is the earliest possible date and most of the Torah wasn't written until the time of Josiah.

This is extremely dubious in contrast to the firm, contemporary evidence for the existence of all the King Georges I can think of off the top of my head, wouldn't you agree?

KP1;13513304']Muhammad was involved in the killing of a tonnnn of people. You can't really say that he was a better person than Jesus.



Can you even prove that King George existed?

No, not really... but we have papers of accounts that talk about King George and his actions. The same is true with Abraham.

well, learning more about the history of early Islam would reveal Muhammad only fought wars against those that attacked him first and would've killed him and all the Muslims as well, and that he didn't kill anyone that didn't fight him in the first place. I'm a Muslim but I can't say that either was a better person seeing as how they were both prophets appointed by God.

KP1;13513304']Muhammad was involved in the killing of a tonnnn of people. You can't really say that he was a better person than Jesus.



Can you even prove that King George existed?

No, not really... but we have papers of accounts that talk about King George and his actions. The same is true with Abraham.

So does killing make one a bad person necessarily? Is someone who has never killed better than someone who has by default?

Why isnt the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the poll? May you all be touched by his noodley appendage!


http://www.venganza.org/Twiced!

C'mon, own up, whose puppet are you?
You;ve GOT to be a joke.
They're the puppet of LOVE! :)
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/cool29.gif

Abraham without whom neither religion could exist

Good point. And in honour, of course, we should all add/subtract/alter a letter in our names.

What about Jehommaddha, then? Of course, everyone forgets about him, regardless of his obvious importance...

Jesus changed things for the next 1000 years. Prophet mohammed didn't have such an effect.

orly? ever hear of the renasaunce?

=^^=
.../\...

orly? ever hear of the renasaunce?

=^^=
.../\...

Renasaunce? Is that Finnish? :confused:

Renasaunce? Is that Finnish? :confused:

Is that typo or a languange differential? It is to different to be a typo, so let's assume that is Finnish.

(Wait, is it?)

OK, what the h33l is Soviestan?
I mean what is his god, teaching, etc.

HAHAHAHA!

On one hand, we have Jesus, who told us to "Turn the other cheek". On the other, we have Mohammed, who brutally conquered nations and married a nine year-old.

Jesus by a country mile.

OK, what the h33l is Soviestan?
I mean what is his god, teaching, etc.

That varies. I believe he currently is a devout homosexual muslim.
So I guess his teachings are best summarised as "be what you want to be today".

Though the way you put it - Mohammed was far more fun at parties. Even without alcohol.

:rolleyes:

How about "none of the above"

HAHAHAHA!

On one hand, we have Jesus, who told us to "Turn the other cheek". On the other, we have Mohammed, who brutally conquered nations and married a nine year-old.

Jesus by a country mile.

Though the way you put it - Mohammed was far more fun at parties. Even without alcohol.

Hey - post stupid statements, get a stupid response. It is probably a Newtonian law of physics.

There was nothing stupid about what I said.

That varies. I believe he currently is a devout homosexual muslim.
So I guess his teachings are best summarised as "be what you want to be today".

OH SHOOT! If only he is a non-gay Muslim...
All my Sharia forces, execute him now!