LOLOL There never was a debate. Like playing chess with a pigeon. All you do is knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like you won.
That those killed during the inquisition were only a fraction of the Spanish inquisition is historical fact - The Cathar's are just one of hundreds of examples. How many would you like ? That Hag's were killed is "reality" ... at least according to my University Prof. Your example was from the Spanish inquisition. The inquisition in Spain was not the only inquisition ... other Countries had the inquisition as well. Nowhere do I excuse Muslim crimes on the basis of the 1000 years of horror under Christianity.
Cherry picking sentences and responding in gibberish is not an argument for much You are a liability to the cause .. not an asset.
Even if the case that I don't like them, they call it freedom of expressing an opinion. The same as you don't like what I wrote, it doesn't bother me. And to explain to you in details why I disagree with their views will be time-consuming, and it will not change the outcome of our discussion. My views I expressed in the thread and more threads I wrote.
You are wrong and your opinion regarding me representing Christianity is naive. In Luke 19:27, Jesus order his enemies to be killed in front of him, (But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me).
Of course, I heard of that criminal. He is fugitive and wanted for justice. Did you hear of the leader of the Lord's army operating in Uganda and southern Sudan? He appears and gives speeches too. He claims to represent Christian value. However, his actions representing himself and the outlaw joined him, the same as Abū Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Again, you're mistaking every catholic violence with the inquisition. The albigenian crusade occureded between 1209 and 1229 and the inquisition was funed at the end of this said crusade. Exposition of the case ? Name, date ? Considering the number of university teacher which care less of the historical truth than their political agenda, it's not that they are the university I trust them. Yes because it was the spanish inquisition which was mentionned in this tread. Were did I denied that there were inquisition in other countries ? I never denied the existence of violence under christianity. I just think we should be exact on historical facts. And again, judging people of the fact on such considerations are anachronical judgment.
Because you don't have a valid reason to dissagre with Robert Spencers views, unless you are a psychopath. Give me one valid reason Spencers views, and statements, are wrong. Just one, valid one.
At least Spencer puts his sh-t on the table for all to see, and he invites discussion. You are defending a religion you know nothing about.
By the way, you can't speak in name of all muslims, but there is recurrences in muslim countries, like death penalty for apostate or blasphemy, which isn't the case in any other country too. It's important to know that death penalty for apostasy is based on muslim sacred texts. There is among fundamentalists muslims a hypocrisy which consist to be for their own freedom but support in the same time death penalty for apostates. Freedom is important, but societies are based on a social contract, and there is some common rules to agree on if you want to prevent the said society to collapse because of the destruction of the social contract.
‘Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him’ – Sahih Al-Bukhari (9:57) These are orders from Big Mo. himself, and are repeated all through the text.
Na, They fly planes into buildings, no problem, Sunni is responsible for 70% of world terror, no problem. We ignore stuff because we are prostitutes, sucking up to their money.
Because Saudi Arabia can have their own social contract. The world isn't a single country. Muslim countries can function as muslim countries wish to work. They have their own social contract which have its own consistency, but if someone try to act as if the social contract ot the USA would be the one of Saudi Arabia, it will create huge problems.
Spencer doesn't speak for the views on all Muslims, he has even said that. You just made that up. He speaks for the views on Islam, and will break down his accusations to who he is talking to.
When the Muslim does not condemn the scripture, it is a valid argument. Do you see Muslims publicly arguing about scripture, No you do not..
islam is hateful. islam is primarily an authoritarian governmental system. islam is secondarily a religion. However, I have never heard of islam described as an "industry".
Sure you do but, just because someone does not go out and openly confront others does not make them an Islamist. Your argument is complete bunk.
Yeah right. When you are part of an evil organization. You are part of the problem. If you want to hijack the religion, and make it peaceful. That is good. But don't you think you should be telling your friends, and others who are trapped in the evil part. Or, are you afraid they will kill you. Or are you just lying to the kaffir. Please tell me, what excuse do you use.