ALL THAT POSTS, POLLS AND POETRY ABOUT RELIGION ARE RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL QUESTIONS? (91)
Albertaghost: True that none are bloodless however, Guzmani contends that Christianity has killed more people which is a fallacy.
How about those who do not believe in religion, Mao killed a hundred million so, do your also hate those who do not believe in religion as well?
How about those who do not believe in religion, Mao killed a hundred million so, do your also hate those who do not believe in religion as well?
It was a religion of person - - - So to speak, the same as Stalinist cult of personality - - - Call it religion, cult - - what ever the name, the end result is the same is it not in these cases - - - where the absolutism is the rule so to speak - - - Chinese Emperors have been doing the killing the same as communists for that matter - - - - I said despise, not hate - - - - But in my post I wrote about religion, cos the discussion was about religion and not about Mao - - - or any other absolutist political system - - - - I think that debating which religion has killed more people is a joke, cos we will never know, even one life, killed for religion, or absolutist, fundamentalist reason is one to many - - - - -
54xmax: It was a religion of person - - - So to speak, the same as Stalinist cult of personality - - - Call it religion, cult - - what ever the name, the end result is the same is it not in these cases - - - where the absolutism is the rule so to speak - - -
He was an atheist and communism can hardly be called a cult but, nice waffle gabbing anyhow.
54xmax: I think that debating which religion has killed more people is a joke, cos we will never know, even one life, killed for religion, or absolutist, fundamentalist reason is one to many - - - - -
A quick point Max, if you go back to the OP, you will see where the entire threads premise is that Christianity is the most violent religion. This is the thread you came to and, if you do not wish to speak about this then please, just pass on by as it is certainly not your job to try and close it down.
As for your contention that this should not be debated I agree because we know for a fact that Christianity hardly has the monopoly on death. I cited 270 million deaths directly attributed to Islam and the actions to spread it. Nowhere can anyone cite the same for any other religion.
Albertaghost: He was an atheist and communism can hardly be called a cult but, nice waffle gabbing anyhow.
A quick point Max, if you go back to the OP, you will see where the entire threads premise is that Christianity is the most violent religion. This is the thread you came to and, if you do not wish to speak about this then please, just pass on by as it is certainly not your job to try and close it down.
As for your contention that this should not be debated I agree because we know for a fact that Christianity hardly has the monopoly on death. I cited 270 million deaths directly attributed to Islam and the actions to spread it. Nowhere can anyone cite the same for any other religion.
A quick point Max, if you go back to the OP, you will see where the entire threads premise is that Christianity is the most violent religion. This is the thread you came to and, if you do not wish to speak about this then please, just pass on by as it is certainly not your job to try and close it down.
As for your contention that this should not be debated I agree because we know for a fact that Christianity hardly has the monopoly on death. I cited 270 million deaths directly attributed to Islam and the actions to spread it. Nowhere can anyone cite the same for any other religion.
I am not trying to close anything down I was just voicing my opinion, that are what forums are as far as I know - - - - -
Let us not go in to semantics now, I also said call it what you want - - - - you know exactly what I mean - - - - Cult, Political System, Religion, Scam Pyramid - - - - The brotherhood of the just - - - Pick a name, or title - - - any title - - - - My point is, the end result is the same, people getting killed. . . . . I know what OP posted - - - - - So why did you then mention Mao - - - - anyway - - -doesn't matter - - - - I know you just want to get in to an argument - - -
By the way, nice citation about the numbers you posted - - - Would have been nice to see the same from the OP about Christianity, then one can compare millions, who has bloodier hands so to speak - - - Which religion is more blood thirsty Thou I will say, that Christianity was trying it's best to catch up with Muslims in the numbers - - - - I wouldn't say that they lack in enthusiasm, ingenuity, and interesting excuses to kill people . . . . .
54xmax: As I said, you are just looking for a "fight" so to speak - - - -
Sorry but the guy looking for the fight is the one who stated that debating the OP is a joke.
54xmax: I will just say this, my purpose was, and is, having fun on the forums - - - -
Must be a lot of fun calling others debating a joke.
54xmax: maybe even learning something new on occasion
Well, calling debates with facts being presented a joke is a sure fire way to learn I am sure.
54xmax: As for ranting - - - - Call it what you want - - - - What do I care You could be accused of the same thing ( Ranting )
Doubt it. You have yet to present anything that can remotely be considered factual and instead, have simply assigned names and 'isms' to anything you find yourself in need of providing same. All the while attempting to priop up a front of having something to say here.
First look at your self, before you start pointing out with a finger.
Doubt it. You have yet to present anything that can remotely be considered factual and instead, have simply assigned names and 'isms' to anything you find yourself in need of providing same. All the while attempting to priop up a front of having something to say here.
First look at your self, before you start pointing out with a finger.
Links, quotes from various books complete with page numbers and you, calling political beliefs a religion without a shred of evidence. I suppose i can point a finger.
54xmax: I figured you out - - - - - By the way, I am not talking about US at all here I am not splitting hair as you are doing, just to find something you can argue about - - - - You go ahead if this is what turns you on, enjoy, have fun
Well Max, as I said, I'm not the guy who entered the thread and called the debate a joke and proceeded to produce nothing but hubris.
Enjoy!
54xmax: As I said, you are just looking for a "fight" so to speak - - - -
Sorry but the guy looking for the fight is the one who stated that debating the OP is a joke.
54xmax: I will just say this, my purpose was, and is, having fun on the forums - - - -
Must be a lot of fun calling others debating a joke.
54xmax: maybe even learning something new on occasion
Well, calling debates with facts being presented a joke is a sure fire way to learn I am sure.
54xmax: As for ranting - - - - Call it what you want - - - - What do I care You could be accused of the same thing ( Ranting )
Doubt it. You have yet to present anything that can remotely be considered factual and instead, have simply assigned names and 'isms' to anything you find yourself in need of providing same. All the while attempting to priop up a front of having something to say here.
54xmax: First look at your self, before you start pointing out with a finger.
Links, quotes from various books complete with page numbers and you, calling political beliefs a religion without a shred of evidence. I suppose i can point a finger.
54xmax: I figured you out - - - - - By the way, I am not talking about US at all here I am not splitting hair as you are doing, just to find something you can argue about - - - - You go ahead if this is what turns you on, enjoy, have fun
Well Max, as I said, I'm not the guy who entered the thread and called the debate a joke and proceeded to produce nothing but hubris.
Enjoy!
Albertaghost:
Must be a lot of fun calling others debating a joke.
Must be a lot of fun calling others debating a joke.
In what way are you debating with Guzman1? Debating involves two sides listening to one another and discussing a subject. I don't see any discussion, I just see two, possibly, religious people shouting at one another. I think Max is absolutely right the 'discussion' has turned into a joke. Both religions, no, ALL religions are used as an excuse for aggression. RELIGION has killed very few people, PEOPLE kill people and then use religion as an excuse/justification for their actions. What I find truely frightening is that both of you believe in the SAME god. It's sort of like two brothers arguing who killed the most family in their fathers name! If the God you believe in does exist how disgusted do you you think he would be at the behaviour of his 'family'?
Well, calling debates with facts being presented a joke is a sure fire way to learn I am sure.
Doubt it. You have yet to present anything that can remotely be considered factual and instead, have simply assigned names and 'isms' to anything you find yourself in need of providing same. All the while attempting to priop up a front of having something to say here.
Links, quotes from various books complete with page numbers and you, calling political beliefs a religion without a shred of evidence. I suppose i can point a finger.
Well Max, as I said, I'm not the guy who entered the thread and called the debate a joke and proceeded to produce nothing but hubris.
Enjoy!
Albertaghost:
Must be a lot of fun calling others debating a joke.
Must be a lot of fun calling others debating a joke.
In what way are you debating with Guzman1? Debating involves two sides listening to one another and discussing a subject. I don't see any discussion, I just see two, possibly, religious people shouting at one another. I think Max is absolutely right the 'discussion' has turned into a joke. Both religions, no, ALL religions are used as an excuse for aggression. RELIGION has killed very few people, PEOPLE kill people and then use religion as an excuse/justification for their actions. What I find truely frightening is that both of you believe in the SAME god. It's sort of like two brothers arguing who killed the most family in their fathers name! If the God you believe in does exist how disgusted do you you think he would be at the behaviour of his 'family'?
Sorry hit the wrong key
Iuchi_Zien: Firstly that is a very one sided and somewhat biggoted view of the crusades. Anyone would think that the Muslims were the innocent victims in this affair. Explain the following -:
633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.
850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .
1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)
I could continue, but I'm sure you are getting the point. Both sides of the crusades commited attrocities and for you to condemn the Christians whilst justifying the Islamic massacres and attrocities shows a level of religious intolerence and bigotry worthy of the worst of the crusaders, Christian or Muslim..
633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.
850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .
1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)
I could continue, but I'm sure you are getting the point. Both sides of the crusades commited attrocities and for you to condemn the Christians whilst justifying the Islamic massacres and attrocities shows a level of religious intolerence and bigotry worthy of the worst of the crusaders, Christian or Muslim..
Please read all my posts and indicate me when I said Muslim ever were peaceful people. But I do not read anyone that says Christians were.
I try to avoid comparations but I see that you retake the arguments of others I thought you disagree.
And I didn't defend any kind of violence, religious or not. But if anyone didn't chant the same battle-cry than others he´s a friend of the ennemies, a betrayer.
And who is more hated than the enemy? the betrayer.
Iuchi_Zien: Firstly that is a very one sided and somewhat biggoted view of the crusades. Anyone would think that the Muslims were the innocent victims in this affair. Explain the following -:
633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.
850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .
1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)
I could continue, but I'm sure you are getting the point. Both sides of the crusades commited attrocities and for you to condemn the Christians whilst justifying the Islamic massacres and attrocities shows a level of religious intolerence and bigotry worthy of the worst of the crusaders, Christian or Muslim..
633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.
850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .
1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)
I could continue, but I'm sure you are getting the point. Both sides of the crusades commited attrocities and for you to condemn the Christians whilst justifying the Islamic massacres and attrocities shows a level of religious intolerence and bigotry worthy of the worst of the crusaders, Christian or Muslim..
People seem to be unaware of the duration of this conflict. The Crusades do not exist in isolation historically. The Byzantines had been fighting for survival since the time of Heraklios (610-641 AD).
It is erroneous to reduce this conflict to mere simplifications and generalisations.
See Ostrogorsky, G. The History of the State for a detailed analysis of this clash of cultures.
Class5: People seem to be unaware of the duration of this conflict. The Crusades do not exist in isolation historically. The Byzantines had been fighting for survival since the time of Heraklios (610-641 AD).
It is erroneous to reduce this conflict to mere simplifications and generalisations.
See Ostrogorsky, G. The History of Byzantine the State for a detailed analysis of this clash of cultures.
It is erroneous to reduce this conflict to mere simplifications and generalisations.
See Ostrogorsky, G. The History of Byzantine the State for a detailed analysis of this clash of cultures.
Errata.
Class5:
It is erroneous to reduce this conflict to mere simplifications and generalisations.
It is erroneous to reduce this conflict to mere simplifications and generalisations.
I beg to differ, it can be generalized as a war of expansion, in which both sides, Christians and Muslims, commited atrocities but whose primary victims were the locals.
Iuchi_Zien: I beg to differ, it can be generalized as a war of expansion, in which both sides, Christians and Muslims, commited atrocities but whose primary victims were the locals.
...and who were the 'locals'?
Well, the political and religious conflict is quite complicated and as a student of the period, I'm reluctant to reduce 800 years to a mere sentence.
Class5: ...and who were the 'locals'?
I'd say the 'locals' who suffered the worst were the Urban populations of primarily middle-eastern and south European descent. (Assuming you class the population of the Byzantine Empire as, primarily, European)
Everything becomes complicated, the deeper you look. As a student of the subject, the more you look the more complicated it gets, but for the purpose of the discussion, I'd argue that the complication of why X attacked Y and why Y burnt Z is reasonably irrelevent.
Say, did you ever get the word 'veto' figured out during your seven month absence?
Iuchi_Zien: I'd say the 'locals' who suffered the worst were the Urban populations of primarily middle-eastern and south European descent. (Assuming you class the population of the Byzantine Empire as, primarily, European)
Everything becomes complicated, the deeper you look. As a student of the subject, the more you look the more complicated it gets, but for the purpose of the discussion, I'd argue that the complication of why X attacked Y and why Y burnt Z is reasonably irrelevent.
Everything becomes complicated, the deeper you look. As a student of the subject, the more you look the more complicated it gets, but for the purpose of the discussion, I'd argue that the complication of why X attacked Y and why Y burnt Z is reasonably irrelevent.
European or Middle Eastern, those distinctions are ours, not theirs.
Your summary which I replied to, seemed to highlight the religious differences without mention of the political nature inherent in the conflict. That is why I responded thus. Note, the poll's options.
Albertaghost: Say, did you ever get the word 'veto' figured out during your seven month absence?
Yes I did and you are wrong, now isn't that unusual!!
UN: The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a "procedural" draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.
The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called "P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution. Abstention, or absence from the vote by a permanent member does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.
The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called "P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution. Abstention, or absence from the vote by a permanent member does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.
Voting 'No' does not automatically result in the application of the Veto as you said it did Sorry off topic I know. I won't add but he started it because my naughty for being off topic is not reduced by him going off topic first.
Iuchi_Zien: How often have I heard the same justification of GITMO by the argument that, terrorists don't follow the UN rules regarding human rights, so it's OK for us not to.
Have no idea. How many? can you quote them and, wondering ... what relevance does that have to this thread?
Iuchi_Zien: Rubbish!! I'll! use! as! many! exclamation! marks! as! I! want! and yet again your opinion masquerading as fact!
Please start by showing where my opinion was given rather than me stating facts then, explain why you need to shout.
Albertaghost: Have no idea. How many? can you quote them and, wondering ... what relevance does that have to this thread?
Please start by showing where my opinion was given rather than me stating facts then, explain why you need to shout.
Please start by showing where my opinion was given rather than me stating facts then, explain why you need to shout.
What's the point? you aren't listening!
It seems God invented gobbledegook,
just for you..
What are you talking about.
Yes techno fairyland, How do I subscribe to you News letter.
just for you..
What are you talking about.
Yes techno fairyland, How do I subscribe to you News letter.
Class5: People seem to be unaware of the duration of this conflict. The Crusades do not exist in isolation historically. The Byzantines had been fighting for survival since the time of Heraklios (610-641 AD).
It is erroneous to reduce this conflict to mere simplifications and generalisations.
See Ostrogorsky, G. The History of the State for a detailed analysis of this clash of cultures.
It is erroneous to reduce this conflict to mere simplifications and generalisations.
See Ostrogorsky, G. The History of the State for a detailed analysis of this clash of cultures.
A very curious opinion: Byzantines fought with muslim before 622 A.D. when Mohammed went to Medina to rally his followers and start the "Hejira". It was the starting point of Islamic expansion, but doesn't matter, muslim existed before Islam.
GUZMAN1: A very curious opinion: Byzantines fought with muslim before 622 A.D. when Mohammed went to Medina to rally his followers and start the "Hejira". It was the starting point of Islamic expansion, but doesn't matter, muslim existed before Islam.
My bold
How exactly did 'muslim' exist before 'Islam'
Definition:
Noun: A follower of the religion of Islam.
Adjective: Of or relating to the Muslims or their religion
Noun: A follower of the religion of Islam.
Adjective: Of or relating to the Muslims or their religion
GUZMAN1: A very curious opinion: Byzantines fought with muslim before 622 A.D. when Mohammed went to Medina to rally his followers and start the "Hejira". It was the starting point of Islamic expansion, but doesn't matter, muslim existed before Islam.
The dates (610-641AD) supplied are for the reign of Heraklios. Muslim expansion into The Roman Empire (Romaioi/Byzantine) occurred during his reign and became a feature in Byzantine History until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
(http://www.umich.edu/~marcons/Crusades/timeline/precursors.html)
(http://www.umich.edu/~marcons/Crusades/timeline/detailedtimeline.html)
Iuchi_Zien: My boldHow exactly did 'muslim' exist before 'Islam'
I was trying to be ironic. Perhaps my english is very bad.
Of course is impossible that bizantynes or anyone else could fought the muslim before they existed, as someone said. Muslim are the Islam believers, naturally.
GUZMAN1: I was trying to be ironic. Perhaps my english is very bad.
Of course is impossible that bizantynes or anyone else could fought the muslim before they existed, as someone said. Muslim are the Islam believers, naturally.
Of course is impossible that bizantynes or anyone else could fought the muslim before they existed, as someone said. Muslim are the Islam believers, naturally.
See my post above for an explanation of the dates I used. The first incursions occurred during this reign.
GUZMAN1: Do you need to manipulate my words?
I manipulated nothing. I responded to the comments you made.
GUZMAN1:
The complete phrase was "in Spain (my country)existed only Christian prosecutions against Jews and Muslim. Of course there were exceptions, but I'm not sure if were polithical or religious because during the Arab domination the christian and jews were mostly respected because Islam recognized them as believers."
The complete phrase was "in Spain (my country)existed only Christian prosecutions against Jews and Muslim. Of course there were exceptions, but I'm not sure if were polithical or religious because during the Arab domination the christian and jews were mostly respected because Islam recognized them as believers."
So based upon your own, I hesitate to use the word arguement, but .. because during the fifteen hundred years of Christianity in Iceland, Christianity is a better religion than Islam! What a pile of poppycock! What have you proven? Nothing. You have taken one area, subjected to religion, and ignored all the other factors, military and political. Well I can do the same with Iceland, which also proves nothing.
GUZMAN1:
Yes, prosecutions were mostly christian. During wartime nobody had clean hands, but I said "prosecutions".
Yes, prosecutions were mostly christian. During wartime nobody had clean hands, but I said "prosecutions".
Ah, so when Islamic armies ignore the rules laid out in the Koran about waging war that is OK? Both sides were involved in atrocities during the period. The fact that it was a war in no way mitigates the atrocities.
GUZMAN1:
And I insist that the muslim concept of "another believers" can not be compared with the concept of "infaithful" of Christians and Jewish. It wouldn't be honest mix the jews in the side of prosecutors, but if someone wants to talk about the conquests of King David, I am ready to listen anything.
And I insist that the muslim concept of "another believers" can not be compared with the concept of "infaithful" of Christians and Jewish. It wouldn't be honest mix the jews in the side of prosecutors, but if someone wants to talk about the conquests of King David, I am ready to listen anything.
In which case where is your wholehearted support for the Goldern Horde Mongols, who insisted that ALL religions be treated equally, that no one religion be placed above the others. The only exception being religions which practiced human sacrifice which were persecuted whenever and wherever possible.
Iuchi_Zien: I manipulated nothing. I responded to the comments you made.
So based upon your own, I hesitate to use the word arguement, but .. because during the fifteen hundred years of Christianity in Iceland, Christianity is a better religion than Islam! What a pile of poppycock! What have you proven? Nothing. You have taken one area, subjected to religion, and ignored all the other factors, military and political. Well I can do the same with Iceland, which also proves nothing.
Ah, so when Islamic armies ignore the rules laid out in the Koran about waging war that is OK? Both sides were involved in atrocities during the period. The fact that it was a war in no way mitigates the atrocities.
In which case where is your wholehearted support for the Goldern Horde Mongols, who insisted that ALL religions be treated equally, that no one religion be placed above the others. The only exception being religions which practiced human sacrifice which were persecuted whenever and wherever possible.
So based upon your own, I hesitate to use the word arguement, but .. because during the fifteen hundred years of Christianity in Iceland, Christianity is a better religion than Islam! What a pile of poppycock! What have you proven? Nothing. You have taken one area, subjected to religion, and ignored all the other factors, military and political. Well I can do the same with Iceland, which also proves nothing.
Ah, so when Islamic armies ignore the rules laid out in the Koran about waging war that is OK? Both sides were involved in atrocities during the period. The fact that it was a war in no way mitigates the atrocities.
In which case where is your wholehearted support for the Goldern Horde Mongols, who insisted that ALL religions be treated equally, that no one religion be placed above the others. The only exception being religions which practiced human sacrifice which were persecuted whenever and wherever possible.
I don't mitigate atrocities, but I don't make religion responsible of it. If a religion forced to commit hese atrocitties I should condemn that religion as I did with those who practice human sacrifices.
Jesus said was wrong to kill, but Christianity killed a lot, and using religious arguments sometimes. Hypocracy.
What do you want to answer to your question about christianism in Iceland? In Iceland never christians coexisted with other religions and I have nothing to say except that in the 16th century the Crown of Denmark imposed Lutheranism and beheaded the last catholic Bishop in Iceland. Curiosities of wikipedia, really.
I'm happy for being asked about Mongols. Their great empire never could be created if they were religious bigots, because people of too many religions lived there. Gengis Khan only suspected about monotheist cults for pretending be the true believers and disease anyone else (specially about christians of the rivale merkit tribe and others).
The Golden Horde is called usually the second Mongol Empire or the Tartarian Empire because were really the Tartarians who created trying to have a new mongol empire. Existed the same level of tolerance that in the previous Mongol Empire. His leader was Timur Lang, a muslim.
Search another countries before you ask me.
Indeed I have one doubt about something you said in another comment. Really your country allow an invasion of Italians? then it's true you are Slobbovian!!!
GUZMAN1: I don't mitigate atrocities, but I don't make religion responsible of it. If a religion forced to commit hese atrocitties I should condemn that religion as I did with those who practice human sacrifices.
But you do. You argue that a 'true' muslim would never detonate a bomb in a mosque. Even after his Imam told him he would go to heaven for commiting such an act? Imams are human and have their own prejudices and bigotry just like anybody else and are just as capable of twisting the Koran to fit their beliefs as any other.
GUZMAN1:
Jesus said was wrong to kill, but Christianity killed a lot, and using religious arguments sometimes. Hypocracy.
Jesus said was wrong to kill, but Christianity killed a lot, and using religious arguments sometimes. Hypocracy.
It also says thou shalt not kill in the Koran, you want to talk about hypocrisy?
GUZMAN1:
Indeed I have one doubt about something you said in another comment. Really your country allow an invasion of Italians? then it's true you are Slobbovian!!!
Indeed I have one doubt about something you said in another comment. Really your country allow an invasion of Italians? then it's true you are Slobbovian!!!
Ever heard of the Roman Empire? A certain Julius Ceaser maybe?
More Threads
Nature
Icebergs Still Around
The world is as you see
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Heavy Bass In The PM
Your Mental Health
Wondering
Reality Check
Salami, Salami, Baloney
What's going on
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
True that none are bloodless however, Guzmani contends that Christianity has killed more people which is a fallacy.
How about those who do not believe in religion, Mao killed a hundred million so, do your also hate those who do not believe in religion as well?