Reformed Islam

[brewmama]

And the prophet told his followers post-conquest to live peacefully alongside their neighbors and allow them to worship as they choose. Just like David, he was violent when he needed territory and peaceful when it was won


I'll give Abraham a pass since he only killed to save his relatives from captivity. But you'd be hard-pressed to find a huge difference between Mohammed's actions and those of the Israelite kings

Not if you actually look at Mohammed's methods and motives. And not if you look past the founders to the followers. He was peaceful when he thought everyone would join him, then violent and hateful when he realized they wouldn't. And what Jewish conquest is equivalent to the horrors of Islam in India?

"The holocaust of the Hindus in India was of even greater proportions, the only difference was that it continued for 800 years, till the brutal regimes were effectively overpowered in a life and death struggle by the Sikhs in the Panjab and the Hindu Maratha armies in other parts of India in the late 1700’s.

We have elaborate literary evidence of the World’s biggest holocaust from existing historical contemporary eyewitness accounts. The historians and biographers of the invading armies and subsequent rulers of India have left quite detailed records of the atrocities they committed in their day-to-day encounters with India’s Hindus."
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.co...st-in-world-history-whitewashed-from-history/

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not if you actually look at Mohammed's methods and motives. And not if you look past the founders to the followers. He was peaceful when he thought everyone would join him, then violent and hateful when he realized they wouldn't.

That's exactly how the Israelite kings handled things. In fact, that's how pretty much ALL rulers at the time handled things. You either join and pay tribute, or you get destroyed. The only difference is that Mohammed actually gave many of the people he conquered a chance to join him. When taking over the Promised Land the Jewish leaders have their victims no such option. They were all slaughtered: men, women, and children

And what Jewish conquest is equivalent to the horrors of Islam in India?

Sort of. The population of India is much much much much greater than that of the Israelites victims. That's simply global population growth. And therefore the muslims' Hindu victims are more numerous, just as they would be if the Israelites had taken over a Promised Land with 2 billion people in it that have to be removed.

The real difference is that in India/Pakistan, the Muslims aren't the sole perpetrators. The Hindu extremists are numerous and just as radical in India as the Muslim extremists. Look at the death toll on both sides of that conflict. They are both to blame. In the case of the Israelite leaders there was no force threatening to destroy them at the time. They were the only perpetrators.

Also: don't expect accurate, unbiased info from a site called "The Muslim Issue." That's like expecting accuracy from a site titled "Christians suck."

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So what you're saying is that Muslims can be reformed, but Islam cannot.

Reforming a view that is not the one-true view implies "reformation" means denouncing Islam as a false view.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You guys do realize that most Muslims are not killers right?

They are the liberal Muslims.

Islam is a false religion of hate, wherein violence is theologically and doctrinally mandated for all Muslims.

That not all Muslims are not killers only begs the question, "Why are they not following their book versus cherry-picking what it commands all Muslims to be doing?"

AMR

 

[Greg Jennings]

That not all Muslims are not killers only begs the question, "Why are they not following their book versus cherry-picking what it commands all Muslims to be doing?"

AMR

Man oh man.....have you seriously never heard that same question asked of Christians?

Example: supposedly all sins are equal, yet many Christians would like to pretend that homosexuality is worse than adultery or divorce. They "cherry-pick" what they want to and are comfortable with believing, exactly as Muslims do with the Quran

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Man oh man.....have you seriously never heard that same question asked of Christians?

Example: supposedly all sins are equal, yet many Christians would like to pretend that homosexuality is worse than adultery or divorce. They "cherry-pick" what they want to and are comfortable with believing, exactly as Muslims do with the Quran

"uposedly" lies at your error.

Not all sins are equal, e.g., ‘He that delivered me unto thee, has the greater sin.’ John 19:11

Scripture clearly holds forth that there is a gradual difference in sin; some are greater than others; some are ‘mighty sins,’ and 'crying sins.’ Amos 5:12; Gen 18:21. Every sin has a voice to speak, but some sins cry.

AMR

 

[Greg Jennings]

"uposedly" lies at your error.

Not all sins are equal, e.g., ‘He that delivered me unto thee, has the greater sin.’ John 19:11

Scripture clearly holds forth that there is a gradual difference in sin; some are greater than others; some are ‘mighty sins,’ and 'crying sins.’ Amos 5:12; Gen 18:21. Every sin has a voice to speak, but some sins cry.

AMR

I'll get more specific: adultery, homosexuality, and even intercourse with your wife on her period are all sins punishable by death according to the Bible. Why then do Christians commonly single out homosexuals as the targets of their wrath? Because they cherry-pick

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why would a lie, need to be "reformed" is my question. There was never any truth to it, to need to get back to.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'll get more specific: adultery, homosexuality, and even intercourse with your wife on her period are all sins punishable by death according to the Bible. Why then do Christians commonly single out homosexuals as the targets of their wrath? Because they cherry-pick

Please stop moving the goal posts. You would also need to understand the distinctions between the foreshadowings of the OT and the realities of the NT. But then again, you would never truly understand these things until you stop hating God and call upon the name of the Lord.

AMR

 

[Greg Jennings]

Please stop moving the goal posts. You would also need to understand the distinctions between the foreshadowings of the OT and the realities of the NT. But then again, you would never truly understand these things until you stop hating God and call upon the name of the Lord.

AMR

How did I move the goal posts? Feel free to explain.

I'm aware the the new covenant changed the rules some. But Jesus spoke against men marrying each other and also against divorce and adultery. If you hate gays, you have to hate divorcees too or you're cherry-picking. That simple

And it's hard to hate something you're not even certain exists. I've noticed that a common tactic of Christians is to claim that anyone who questions God hates him. Pity

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm aware the the new covenant changed the rules some. But Jesus spoke against men marrying each other and also against divorce and adultery. If you hate gays, you have to hate divorcees too or you're cherry-picking. That simple

Adultery is the exception for divorce, from His own mouth. Did you miss that?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Adultery is the exception for divorce, from His own mouth. Did you miss that?

No. Less than half of divorces occur due to infidelity. Most are just two people wanting to separate.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No. Less than half of divorces occur due to infidelity. Most are just two people wanting to separate.

But you admit that He gave that exception, so how could it be cherry picking to say He allowed it, you need to revise that argument.

 

[Greg Jennings]

But you admit that He gave that exception, so how could it be cherry picking to say He allowed it, you need to revise that argument.

He gave that exception only to those who were cheated on. That doesn't cover the majority of modern divorces here. Jesus never said that you could divorce your wife because you wanted to see other people, now did he?

 

[Angel4Truth]

He gave that exception only to those who were cheated on. That doesn't cover the majority of modern divorces here. Jesus never said that you could divorce your wife because you wanted to see other people, now did he?

You said saying divorce was ok was cherry picking, yet you also admit He allows for it, regardless of how people use it, doesnt change He allowed for it, so your argument that its faulty period, is inaccurate.

If you want to get right down to it, if someone leaves because they want to see other people, they are committing adultery already in their heart, are they not?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And it's hard to hate something you're not even certain exists. I've noticed that a common tactic of Christians is to claim that anyone who questions God hates him. Pity

I question God often. I know He exists, hence the questioning about this or that. What I do not do is question His existence.

Your indifference to what has been clearly revealed to you by the world around you is bare hatred of He who made you and the world around you.

It is not that you "do not know" or "am uncertain" , it is rather than you have decidedly rejected that which you know in the depths of your heart, reasoned wrongly, exchanging the truth for a lie.

AMR

 

[Greg Jennings]

You said saying divorce was ok was cherry picking, yet you also admit He allows for it, regardless of how people use it, doesnt change He allowed for it, so your argument that its faulty period, is inaccurate.

I said that its cherry-picking to say that homosexuality is bad but that adultery and divorce are okay. I think maybe you entered the conversation halfway through and didn't see that

If you want to get right down to it, if someone leaves because they want to see other people, they are committing adultery already in their heart, are they not?

I'm more of the opinion that everyone has these desires, and that unless you act on them then you are in the clear

 

[Greg Jennings]

I question God often. I know He exists, hence the questioning about this or that. What I do not do is question His existence.

Your indifference to what has been clearly revealed to you by the world around you is bare hatred of He who made you and the world around you.

It is not that you "do not know" or "am uncertain" , it is rather than you have decidedly rejected that which you know in the depths of your heart, reasoned wrongly, exchanging the truth for a lie.

AMR

I'll just repeat, likely to no avail, that I don't reject God. I just aren't certain of his existence. If God spoke to me directly do you think if turn my back? Of course not. But until I am given some proof of existence I can't be certain

 

[Angel4Truth]

I said that its cherry-picking to say that homosexuality is bad but that adultery and divorce are okay.

In no case is homosexuality ever shown to be ok in scripture, not once ever. No cherry picking possible.

In no case is adultery said to be ok in scripture, not once ever. No cherry picking possible.

In one case divorce is said to be ok, so its beyond cherry picking for you to use that as comparisons to the others and is an outright lie.

 

[Greg Jennings]

In no case is homosexuality ever shown to be ok in scripture, not once ever. No cherry picking possible.

In no case is adultery said to be ok in scripture, not once ever. No cherry picking possible.

In one case divorce is said to be ok, so its beyond cherry picking for you to use that as comparisons to the others and is an outright lie.

Jesus never said that divorce not stemming from adultery was okay, now did he?

Just as divorce not stemming from adultery is a sin, so is homosexuality. Therefore to say that divorcees whose spouse didn't cheat on them are okay, but homosexuals are bad, is the very definition of cherry-picking

Am I clear now? This really isn't that hard to understand