Democrat Ilhan Omar wins Minnesota House race

So, a fundamentalist.

 

It carries a stigma, obviously, given that the KKK is known for hatred and murder historically. It is therefore part of an ugly past that most want to leave behind today.

What does today's KKK have to offer? What does it stand for? How does it differ from its past?

 

I think fundamentalist may be a leap of faith when we are speaking of Islam,.

Sure, in Christianity a very small percentage of the writings, can lead a person to "hard core religion".

However in Islam, 80% of the writings speak of what the unknowing would classify as fundamental.
Or basically, the religion itself. There is no fundamental.

 

You and I both know the KKK is a pile of sh-t,
KKK, Nazi, and Islam, are my personal favorites to dump on.

In 1400 years Islam never offered anything but slavery, thievery, murder, oppression.
Their murder numbers are higher than any group in history, at about 270 million.

But we all know a little about the KKK.
Few know anything about Islam,
and won't know, until it is too late.

 

Most of the Christian texts are pretty hard-core, and we have seen what fundamentalist interpretation of them results in. It gives us repressive regimes and a lack of moral reasoning in favor of obeying simple commandments.

Getting away from fundamentalism makes the Abrahamic religions more compatible with western culture and laws, and Muslims are no different from other people in this respect. Ilhan Omar does not strike me as any kind of fundamentalist.

 

Why should Islam ever become an issue? How should it ever reach a "too late" point? What happens then?

 

I agree, 1005.

Except in Islam, you have to remove Muhammed from the religion, not gonna happen.
In Islam, they kill you when you sway from the religion.
she can get away with that here in America.

Hey, she may be great, we can only wait and see.

 

Speaking of fundamentalism, not her.

 

It's the Jewish text that is hard core,
The coming of Christ, and NT, changes the rules, and mellows out the religion quite a bit.

This is where fundamentalist will go back into the jewish text to validate his claims.
Many claim Christianity, but don't understand that now we are turning the other cheek.
However they really aren't killing each other over it.

Islam is different where it is back words to Christianity.

In Islam the Meccan Qur'an is where good things are said, about the Jews and others.
This is fundamentalist.

Then the Medina Qur'an starts robbing and killing everyone.
Except in the Meccan they were robbing Meccan caravans.


We have a play on words here that not everyone can relate to.

"Good Muslims" are very evil people.
Fundamental Islam, is good Islam. Except for the Meccans that is.

 

Right there, the first sentence of my post you chose to quote and respond to without answering the question.

The answer is no. You just don't want to admit it.

 

No reason I should link my comments to what you obsess over.

 

The question is absurd nonsense on steroids. In the first 100 years Christianity had no power.

It is when Christianity got power that the 1000 years of horror began.

 

LOL sure dixon ... there is no reason to link your comments to what is being discussed.

 

?????? They inspired Locke to write "The Reasonableness of Christianity As Delivered in the Scriptures". The Protestant Reformation used the text of the bible to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the divine rule of the Catholic Church. Thomas Paine in his Pamphlet "Common Sense" that helped spark the revolution, used the text of the bible to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the divine rule of monarchs ordained by the church and demonstrate the legitimacy of government of, by and for the people.
Christianity doesn't concern itself with the form of government and law to be applied. Islam dictates both.

 

Christianity as we know it began as the imperial religion of Rome, and it is Romans who assembled what we call the Bible.

But yes, Paine was a very common-sense guy. Famous quotation:
“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.”

― Thomas Paine

 

The Muslims were waging violent jihad from Spain to the west and Afghanistan to the East within 80 years of Muhammads death because the doctrine commanded them to. Back when everyone was illiterate AND bibles were written in Latin, Christian doctrine was whatever the Catholic priest says was doctrine. The printing press, widespread translation and publication of the bible and the spread of literacy put a stop to that.

 

Chistianity began 300 years earlier and encircled the entire Mediterranean sea before the Romans adopted it as their own.

 

I do not deny that Muslims were waging Jihad 80 years after the death of Muhammed. What does this have to do with anything. The fact of the matter - as stated in my previous post- is that Christianity had no power do do this in the first 80 years - even if it had wanted to.

This is why this argument is dumb and dumber on steroids. Further - do you think that Muslims were any more literate at that time - obviously they were following doctrine as well .. duh.

Then you finish with the unsupported nonsense claim that the ability to read the Bible had something to do with putting a stop the Catholic/Protestant horror show.

 

No one but you is discussing your silly obsession with not calling Muslims who adhere to Islamic doctrine a muslim.

 

What is this new BS you are spouting. I have never said anything or inferred anything of the sort. Get some reading comprehension.

 

It demonstrates the effect of a religious doctrine that advocates violence against the unbelievers in contrast to doctrine that does not. .

 

Actually they started it during Muhammeds lifetime.
and never stopped, nor will they.

 

What a joke of a post on the basis of a cherry picking and completely ignoring that this dumb comment has already been refuted in the post you are responding to coupled to a complete falsehood.

The 1000 + years of Christian horror also demonstrates the effect of a religious doctrine that advocates violence against unbelievers.

Your claim that Christian doctrine has not advocated violence against unbelievers is preposterous falsehood on steroids.

 

Either respond to the entire post in context or fk off.

 

Awwww...…. Poor baby.