Democrat Ilhan Omar wins Minnesota House race

Of course there is and I gave you examples of God commanding Genocide in the Bible. You are being obtuse and disingenuous.

Of course you can find justification for Genocide in the Bible .. It is preposterous nonsense and or ignorance of of the Bible to claim otherwise.

Here a Christian leader (who represents the beliefs of a whole swath on the religious right) using the OT to justify killing of gays: go to 1:50.

 

The storys from the past are a part of the doctrine even when they don't contain a commandment for the future. The story of Moses parting the red Sea IS a part of Christian doctrine, even though it contains no commandment for the future. There was no error. AND STILL there is no justification for genocide to be found in the bible.

 

Let me know when you find any justification for genocide in the bible. Stories of genocide in the past do not equate to justifications for genocide today. If anything the stories from the past would imply that a commandment from God would be needed to justify genocide today.

 

God commanded whole towns be killed - including women and children. The justification for this was simply because these people were of a different religious belief .. this is Genocide. This kind of wholesale slaughter (regardless of whether we label it genocide or not) is justified in the OT as are many other of the evil things suggested in Islam.

The justification for killing in the Bible is the same as in the Quran - that the people being killed were infidels - worshiped other Gods.

 

God command wholesale slaughter of innocents in the Bible . simply because they were of a different religious belief.

This is not just a story of killing and slaughter genocide, xenophobia and so on... this is what is commanded by God.

You are descending into disingenuous denial.

 

Don't forget, in Islam they want you to rob them also, " For they must suffer disgrace".

 

How is this relevant ? The Israelite's robbed and they to felt that their enemies (anyone who did not share their beliefs) should suffer.

 

When a Christian hates his enemy and instead of turning his other cheek to him when stricken, kills him, I don't attribute his behavior to his religion because Christian doctrine states that he is to love his enemies and turn his other cheek. When he gets killed by his enemy because he tried to love him instead, I would attribute his behavior and the outcome to his religion. Just as when Muslims who believe they must "fight", "kill", "slay" and "smite the necks" of the unbelievers "until... religion should only be for Allah" AND they do so by killing a bunch of unbelievers, I do attribute their behavior and the outcome to their religion. It is what motivated them. What justifies their actions in their mind.

 

Did their God tell them to do it.

 

You are generalizing the traits of Islamist's to all Muslims and making no attempt to understand why this is bad. This is not just bad because it is logical fallacy. It is not just bad because it violates the rule of law and the principles of justice and morality, logic, rational thought and critical thinking. It is not just bad because it violates the main principle of the religion you claim to uphold - the Golden Rule.

I am in complete agreement with all your claims in relation to the evils that exist within Islam - you are preaching to the choir. I regularly post against these evils myself. I hate Islamist's. If you can't get me on your side - how the fck to you expect to win the battle you and I are fighting ?

When you make these logical errors you become fodder for the other side. When you violate the principles you are claiming to uphold you become an agent for the other side because you can be easily defeated on the basis of hypocrisy and you become easily labeled and thus dismissed.

1 ) What is the objective of this battle ? and 2) on the basis of 1) how should this battle be fought ?

I claim that the objective of this battle is to challenge the idea that certain beliefs and ideologies ( which happen to be inherent to the majority of Muslims) are acceptable in a society that has respect for essential liberty and that idea that these beliefs are not evil in general.

I have trotted out what these specific ideologies are and why they are bad in a way that can not be challenged in the public domain. No one can call me a hypocrite, call me out on logical fallacy and so on.

The battle is fought in the mind. The other side is putting our arguments in favor of their position. None of these arguments can refute my argument.

You claim to be on the same side as I am yet - you are fighting against this unassailable argument. That my friend is what you are doing that is so bad. You are shooting yourself in the foot - fighting against yourself and your mission.

 

Yes .. their God did tell them to do it.

 

The Jewish God was pretty fuc-ed up.
Glad the Christians turned that one around,
and the Jews evolved.

 

Agreed with respect to the Jews. The Christians were doing the same thing "back in the day" as the Islamist's are now - they evolved as well.

The question is then how to get Muslims (the bad ones which is the majority) to evolve. Some Muslims have evolved while others have not.

This is why I distinguish between Muslims who are Islamist and those who are not. It is important not to lump all into the same basket .. see post 1810.

If Jews and Christians can do it .. why not Islamist Muslims ? This is a battle of ideas. In order to win this battle we must do so on the basis of ideas. We are not doing this - the PC whacko's and the Mainstream media (Left, Right and Center) are doing everything in their power not to discuss ideology. They refuse to even use the term "Islamist" never mind explain what is wrong with the Islamist Ideology - as I do ad nauseam.

Engaging in fallacious generalization is not the solution. Calling a spade a spade is the solution.

 

The bible justified genocide of a particular people in a specific time and place 1000s of years ago. Islam justifies genocide today.

 

It wasn't an evolution of Christianity, it was reverting Christianity back to the doctrine of the bible and away from the evolutions invented by the catholic church. Much like today we see the likes of ISIS reverting Islam back to its original form based upon the doctrine of the Koran and hadiths.

 

.

Jews can do it because they are probably the most advanced culture on earth, and they know this was BS from thousands of years ago

Christians can do it because they designed a whole new religion that does not just go out and kill people

Muslims can't because written in the religion is "Islam cannot change.
"
Besides you would have to remove Muhammed from the religion.
That's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

And as far as the Sunnis go, there is the saying, "The gates of ijtihad are closed", locking Islam into a 10th century interpretation.

 

and there is no central authority, the different Sunni groups are killing each other.

 

So full of ****. Not a single word of what you quoted and responded to makes ANY assertion regarding "all Muslims". YOU simply characterize ANY criticism of Islamic doctrine as an attack on all muslims.

 

Islamist, and Moderate, are 2 western terms, that should not exist.

 

If I see a guy in a KKK costume I don't try to rationalize, that maybe he is a good clansman.

He might be the nicest guy in the world, but he is still part of the problem.

 

No central authority but still many authorities. As recently as the late 90s an Egypt professor Nasr Abu Zayd was declared by the appeals court to be an apostate because he questioned the legitimacy of owning slave girls and taxing Christians and jews in modern times. These two issues were agreed upon by ALL the Islamic schools of thought in the 10th century and so today, they are not subject to debate. By not believing in the legitimacy of slave girls and taxes on jews and Christians he was branded an apostate by the courts. They dissolve his marriage because a muslim girl cant be married to a non muslim. That's another of the settled principles of Islam that aren't even subject to debate.

 

Unfortunately, anyone who views the Koran to be the word of Allah, perpetuates the problem. Just as their western defenders who argue that the Koran doesn't mean what it says, perpetuate the problem.

 

Now you are building a straw man in an attempt to avoid the central premise of my argument.

 

This is nonsensical gibberish that has already been refuted.

1) The new religion that Christians created was one of the most bloody in history. Your claim is preposterously false.

This principles on which this nation was founded were in response to the evils of Christianity.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88 ) , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

2) The fact that there are non Islamist Muslims (and the history of Islam in general) refutes your claim that Islam can not change.