Is Islam an evil religion?

[Bill Thompson]

Yes.

How?

Yes.

How.

That the things I have seen you say about religion are way more over the top than the examples you gave.

Examples of what? Examples from whom? What do you mean? What things I have said about what religion?

Man, I do not understand.

You are not specific and you do not explain yourself at all.

Here is what I am guesing. "over the top" means you personally cannot believe it. To me it means you do not understand the difference from fact and supposition. To me you do not know what is worthy of believe and what is not. To me it means you do not do research or study or get the facts. To me it means you do not know what the facts are and you base your belief system on what is not suprising and what is. What is shocking and disturbing to you, you dismiss as something not to be believed.

Have you kept the e-mails?
If you could upload them someplace, I would be interested in reading them.

It was 15 years ago. Maybe they are around. I doubt it. I will take a look. No promises. It would be great to find them so i could rub your nose i them because I assume you doubt me just because it gives you a rush to call me a liar publically.

 

[Bill Thompson]

There's a rather large gulf between thinking the lyrics of a Beatles song referencing an amusement park ride are really about a prophecy for a coming apocalyptic race war and so carrying out murders as a pre-emptive strike in that war, and thinking the voluminous writings of a guy who says ad nauseam and explicitly that Muslims represent a clear and present danger to the Christian West in a coming religiocultural war are really about Muslims representing a clear and present danger to the Christian West in a coming religiocultural war and so carrying out murders as a pre-emptive strike in that war.

EDIT: Or, y'know, what Mister Agenda said.

To be honest I don't know much about this guy in Norway. Can you build a rational, logical case that he did what he did because of christianity?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Ah, good point. Hum....

But, at the same time, did this guy use a bible as a reference and could his interpretation be considered to be literal?

Also, I think you might be mixing two different subjects to piece together an argument.

You are also getting something a little wrong. Sometimes a slight error makes a big mistake.

I never talked about a nut case who runs off on his own in a general sense. That is not how I would classify Osama bin Laden or Warren Jeffs or Terry Shirts. They are fundamentalists. I doubt even this guy in Norway would consider himself to be a fundamentalist of christianity. Did he?

You raise a good point as well, I don't think Breivik was a fundamentalist, although he seems to have been, in part, religiously motivated. It would seem Spencer's writings are closer to having been Breivik's Bible than the Bible was.

Of course, you could point out with equal reasonableness that Osama Bin Laden was only in part motivated by religion, as he was considerably perturbed at the continuing American military presence in his home country, among other things. Both Breivik and OBL had motivations that were more complex than 'hey, I'm just doing what the book says!'.

 

[A'isha]

To be honest I don't know much about this guy in Norway.

You don't say.

Can you build a rational, logical case that he did what he did because of christianity?

Why, yes.

Yes I can.

 

[A'isha]

You raise a good point as well, I don't think Breivik was a fundamentalist, although he seems to have been, in part, religiously motivated. It would seem Spencer's writings are closer to having been Breivik's Bible than the Bible was.

At the risk of drifting further off-topic, he wasn't a "fundamentalist" in the commonly-accepted usage of the phrase (ie, one who holds to an irreducable set of religious doctrines as a reaction against modernist trends), though the definition does fit his views in at least some ways. He was most definitely of a religious bent, however, and was motivated by the establishment and the protection of a "Christian Europe" that was under direct threat by Muslims and liberal multiculturalists.

 

[Bill Thompson]

ANTPogo, nothing would make me happier than your proving me wrong on this particular issue. Did this guy in Norway use Christianity as a rational excuse for doing what he did and could he cite passage and verse in the bible such that a large percentage of christians would agree with him?

Show me christians who agree with him?

Show me Islam believers who would disagree that Rushdie should be killed.

Show me a lecture by a muslim that says "no, Rushdie should not be killed". I have seen lots that say he should be and they are not considered to be radicals.

And has your arguement been, all along, that two wrongs make a right?

 

[FireGarden]

Right. But you are missing the point. The Beatles were an inspiration for Charles Manson but that was no fault of the Beatles.

He didn't miss that, he said: "The Beatles have no culpability though."

Robert Spencer would not admit to being an inspiration from Breivik just as the Beatles would not admit to being an inspration to Manson.

So, in one sentence you say that the Beatles were an inspiration to Manson. In the next you say that they would not admit it. Are you accusing them of being unable to accept an unpleasant fact?

The fact that the Beatles were an inspriation to Manson was Mansons fault, not the Beatles.

There you go again, you say it's a fact. So what do you know about the Beatles which makes you so sure they would deny it?

Got it?

FireGarden seems to think that if some psycho gets "inspiration" from something, then that thing is bad.

I thought that was your argument.
I think the Beatles are great. Not because they inspired Manson, but in spite of it.

I think Robert Spencer is bad. Not because he was one of those who inspired Breivik -- I reached my evaluation long ago.

 

[FireGarden]

Here is what I am guesing. "over the top" means you personally cannot believe it.

'Over the top' means the kind of things you've posted in this thread. They are in stark contrast to discussing the number of legs on insects and whether rabbits chew cud.

It was 15 years ago. Maybe they are around. I doubt it. I will take a look. No promises. It would be great to find them so i could rub your nose i them because I assume you doubt me just because it gives you a rush to call me a liar publically.

The really sad thing is that I don't find it hard to believe you had an e-mail exchange with Fred Phelps. I merely found it hard to believe that insect legs and rabbit cud were a reliable summary of the exchange. You have already confirmed it was not. But perhaps you can get an idea of why I posted what I did if you read your own summary of the exchange.

What else did you discuss with Phelps?

 

[A'isha]

ANTPogo, nothing would make me happier than your proving me wrong on this particular issue. Did this guy in Norway use Christianity as a rational excuse for doing what he did

Yes.

and could he cite passage and verse in the bible such that a large percentage of christians would agree with him?

Actually, I believe he spent more time citing Robert Spencer, oddly enough.

Show me christians who agree with him?

Okay.

Show me Islam believers who would disagree that Rushdie should be killed.

Okay.

Show me a lecture by a muslim that says "no, Rushdie should not be killed".

What, a whole book of essays not enough?

And has your arguement been, all along, that two wrongs make a right?

No, my argument has been, all along, that your wrongs aren't my wrongs, even if we both claim to follow the same religion.

 

[FireGarden]

Okay.



What, a whole book of essays not enough?

Are you getting lazy?
I'm sure you've linked to that before. You better find some new links before you're accused of spamming.

 

[A'isha]

Are you getting lazy?
I'm sure you've linked to that before. You better find some new links before you're accused of spamming.

It has been linked before, but not by me.

 

[FireGarden]

It has been linked before, but not by me.

That's okay then.
My turn next!

 

[Bill Thompson]

ANTPogo, is Anders Behring Breivik insane?

He does not seem to use the bible as Osama bin Laden would use the Quran. If the Unibomber mentioned the bible in his manefesto (and I don't think he did) would that mean it was Christianity that was to blame or would it mean that the Unibomber had a wacked-out political view?

None of the people held at Gitmo were evalauated as being insane.

This is very cool, by the way:
http://www.amazon.com/Rushdie-Essays-Muslim-Writers-Defense/dp/080761355X
thanks for showing me that.

 

[A'isha]

ANTPogo, is Anders Behring Breivik insane?

That's for psychiatrists to determine, not me.

 

[FireGarden]

This is very cool, by the way:
http://www.amazon.com/Rushdie-Essays-Muslim-Writers-Defense/dp/080761355X
thanks for showing me that.

Does that mean I won't get a turn to link to it?

There's even a published book titled "For Rushdie" filled with essays by Muslims from a variety of Muslim countries supporting Rushdie's right to free speech.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/115527.For_Rushdie

 

[A'isha]

If the Unibomber mentioned the bible in his manefesto (and I don't think he did) would that mean it was Christianity that was to blame or would it mean that the Unibomber had a wacked-out political view?

It depends on what he was saying when he mentioned the Bible. Breivik was very explicit that he was doing what he was doing to protect "Christian Europe" from the very threat people like Robert Spencer have ranted about for years.

None of the people held at Gitmo were evalauated as being insane.

I'm not aware they even received evaluations.

This is very cool, by the way:
http://www.amazon.com/Rushdie-Essays-Muslim-Writers-Defense/dp/080761355X
thanks for showing me that.

You're very welcome.

But this is the kind of thing I've been trying to convince you about. There are Muslims who issued fatwas calling for Rushdie's death, or firebombed bookstores carrying his book, or murdered those who translated his book into other languages. But there are also Muslims who stood up and said, "even if his book is a load of blasphemous crap, Salman Rushdie has the right to write and publish it without fear of death or assault."

That the former are much more vocal and (obviously) dangerous than the latter is an issue that has to be addressed (and not ignored or glossed over) doesn't change the fact that the latter exist in Islam.

 

[Bill Thompson]

ANTPogo, this guy in Norway seems to be just a redneck. There are rednecks everywhere. I did not find anything in the bible that made him do what he did. And he really does not claim that the bible instructed him to do what he did.

I can't say the same about the Quran and Osama bin Laden.

It wasn't a fair nor accurate comparison. So whay did you make it?

 

[A'isha]

I did not find anything in the bible that made him do what he did.

Really? You don't say...

And he really does not claim that the bible instructed him to do what he did.

You should try reading his manifesto sometime. These are Breivik's own words:

Many Christians claim that acts of self-defence are unbiblical, unscriptural and ungodly. However, they are un-doubtfully wrong.

The Bible couldn't be clearer on the right, even the duty; we have as Christians to self defence.

Let's start in the Old Testament.

Exodus 22:2 "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him,"

we are told in Exodus 22:2. The next verse says,

"If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodshed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

In other words, it was perfectly OK to kill a thief breaking into your house. That's the ultimate expression of self-defence. It doesn't matter whether the thief is threatening your life or not. You have the right to protect your home, your family and your property, the Bible says.

The Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. The people defended themselves.

Samuel 25:13: ”David said to his men, "Each of you gird on his sword." So each man girded on his sword. And David also girded on his sword, and about four hundred men went up behind David while two hundred stayed with the baggage.” Every man had a sword and every man picked it up when it was required.

Judges 5:8: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?"

Reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm. The answer to the rhetorical question is clear: No. The people had rebelled against God and put away their weapons of self-defence.

Psalms 144:1: "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight,"

Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It's God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight. Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time. And what were those weapons? Swords. They didn't have firearms, but they had side-arms. In fact, in the New Testament, Jesus commanded His disciples to buy them and equip them.

Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Matthew 26:52-54: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"

If you read those verses in context they support the position of self-defence. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation, as well as undermining God's plan to allow Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.

Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn't say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: "Peter, this is not the right time for a fight."

In the context of cultural conservative Europeans current war against the cultural Marxist/multiculturalist elites and the ongoing Islamic invasion through Islamic demographic warfare against Europe, every military action against our enemies is considered self defence. There will be much suffering and destruction but eventually we will succeed and may be able to start rebuilding.

It sure looks to me like he thought the Bible was commanding him to do what he did...

I can't say the same about the Quran and Osama bin Laden.

Others far more knowledgeable about the subject than you certainly can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24oslo.html?_r=2&hp

Thomas Hegghammer, a terrorism specialist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, said the manifesto bears an eerie resemblance to those of Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, though from a Christian rather than a Muslim point of view. Like Mr. Breivik’s manuscript, the major Qaeda declarations have detailed accounts of the Crusades, a pronounced sense of historical grievance and calls for apocalyptic warfare to defeat the religious and cultural enemy.

“It seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse,” Mr. Hegghammer said.

Seems like a pretty explicit comparison to me.

It wasn't a fair nor accurate comparison. So whay did you make it?

Hopefully it's a bit clearer to you now.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I did not find anything in the bible that made him do what he did.

I can't say the same about the Quran and Osama bin Laden.

Then you should probably actually read the Bible (and the Koran, while you're at it).

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

Exodus 32:21-29
Moses said to Aaron, ‘What did this people do to you that you have brought so great a sin upon them?’ And Aaron said, ‘Do not let the anger of my lord burn hot; you know the people, that they are bent on evil. They said to me, “Make us gods, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” So I said to them, “Whoever has gold, take it off ”; so they gave it to me, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this calf!’

When Moses saw that the people were running wild (for Aaron had let them run wild, to the derision of their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me!’ And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. He said to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbour.” ’ The sons of Levi did as Moses commanded, and about three thousand of the people fell on that day. Moses said, ‘Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of a son or a brother, and so have brought a blessing on yourselves this day.’

Numbers 32:13-18
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation went to meet them outside the camp. Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. Moses said to them, ‘Have you allowed all the women to live? These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

1 Samuel 15:1-3
Samuel said to Saul, ‘The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” ’

 

[Bill Thompson]

He is like the Norwegian Ted Kaczynski.

There are others that share his views but they would not go out and commit mass murder.

Breivik even got insipration from the Unibomber and repeated some of the same lines in the Unibomber Manefesto.

For instance, Kaczynski wrote: "One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general."

Breivik's manifesto reads: "One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is multiculturalism, so a discussion of the psychology of multiculturalists can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of Western Europe in general."

Comparing this guy in Norway with Islamic Terroists does not work logically.

The problem is that lots of information is in books and since books are copyrighted they are not on the internet.

So you let your opinions and ideas be shapped by the mainstream and you pick and choose what you think supports what you want to believe.

It is only after you dig a little deeper, you find that you have built not an argument or proof, but a house of cards.

Is the mainstream official Christian establishment secretly supporting this guy like the much of the mainstream Islamic establishment in Pakistan seemed to be secretly supporting Osama bin Laden?

One of the Mooj on our side after the battle at Torra Borra told Dalton Fury that he saw a helocopter come in hugging the tops of the trees late at night and wisk some people away. At first he wondered why the Americans were there but then noticed it was a Pakistani Military chopper. It seemed to have been Osama bin Laden, his second in command, and some of bin Laden's sons that got a ride to safety thanks to the official, Islamic, Secret Panistani Military. Fury did not want to believe him -- Pakistan was supposed to be on our side -- so he pressed him on what day that was and what time. The Mooj did not remember and so the notion died.

It was probably true. It is probably true, that despite what the press tells us, the Islamic officials, or enough officials, liked Osama bin Laden and wanted him to live.

There was also a time when the Delta Force were bringing down the surviving Al Qaeda members off the mountain and one told Fury "I can wisper the location of Osama bin Laden to any Muslim on earth and he will never tell you."

Fury dismissed that as defiance. But taking everything into consideration and how our ally, Zamani, simply stapped us in the back and stalled the war long enough to get Osama bin Laden out of harms way, you have to wonder.

Then there is the issue of the translators used by the Delta Force agents. They were always on the look out for as many as they could find because they only went to Afghanistan with one. But the ones that just so happened to find they way to their service turned out to be agents of the Pakistani Secret Military. They would right away ask the Delta Force guys where they lived in the states and what cities they were from.

The evidence tells us that the official, mainstream Islamic establishment in Pakistan secretly aided Osama bin Laden.

Compare this with this Norwegian guy. Is the mainstream christian establishment behind this guy and are hiding him and giving him safe refuge from the law?

Isn't he arrested?

But wait, there is more. The people whom Breivik got his inspiration from do not support what he did.

According to the 9-11 comission, the people whom Osama bin Laden got his inspriation would support what Al Qaeda did.

Breivik was like the Norwegian Ted Kaczynski. Osama bin Laden was
nothing like an Arabic Ted Kaczynski.

Edit: Something else I have thought of. None of the Afghans seemed really "gung-ho" about fighting Al Qaeda on Torra Borra. When a reliable confirmation of his location was located, it was the Delta Force guys who, without hesitation, grabbed their weapons and ran out and try to get him. Looking back, Fury, seemed to think that none of the Eastern Aliance guys, not even General Alli, seemed to have their hearts into the battle. They just wanted to "shoot and loot" and wait until the Americans left so that their tribes and sects whould have some equipment left over. Compare that to the Norwegian bomber. The Christian police seemed to have their hearts into getting him? I mean, they have him arrested and it was done pretty quickly.