No Kidding Chef. I can't believe how many times I was edited to the point of having whole posts removed that changed the whole context of the debate.

I thinks this is what did it.

Poor thing...the truth hurts doesn't it.

You explain it then Mr/Mrs high and mighty. Why is that non-christian posts are banned when all people are doing is defending humanity?

No truth in it? You wouldn't know the truth if it spit in your face.

Made up reasons? Your entire bible is made up of self-fulfilling prophesies and you call us blind? You are the ones with the rose colored glasses on to blind you from reality totally_gone.

Yes it is truly amazing. I'm amazed. Aren't you guys amazed? No? Amazing! Poor almost_truechristian can't even refute what it says we made up. All it can say is you guys made it up na-na-na, and your mommy wears army boots, and your daddy drinks rum and you ain't got no food in your tummy tum tum. Don't you guys find that amazingly sad? No? Amazing.

Why that's amazing! Don't you guys think that's amazing? No? Amazing!
Don't you guys envy almost_yosemitesam? Boy,I sure do. Amazing! I think I want to go over to its house an throw toilet paper over its trees. Amazing! Why, I think I hate God. Why yes, I do, even though there isn't one. Amazingly Amazing? (chef pauses to dial phone) Hey Pa, remember when you told me to shovel the walk in 1962? Yah? Well I ain't gonna. So there! Amazing! (Psst, did you guys know that almost_ahuman, has porn on its computer?) (No?) (Amazing!) Yes, yes, I confess, it was I that invented the cluster bomb. Amazing isn't it?

Wait, just a minute, I will be right back -------- excuse me, I had to go squash a kitten. The cute little guy popped like a rotten grape! Amazing! It is so Amazing that I am soooo much better than almost_someplaceelse. Why I bet if its a guy, it is bald, and its thing don't work! Amazing.

quick,

Care to back any of this up with factual evidence instead of groupthink supported spin? I mean, personally, I loved this statement

Why don't you tell me what "factual evidence" you'll accept. Then we'll talk.

I'm glad I am just here to please you. Anything else?

How soon you forget your own words too...

Please show me where I've done that. Thanks.

Unfortunately, Quicksand my friend, our "Forgiven" guest is partially correct on this one. The first couple of Crusades were defensive wars against Muslim agression and conquest. The later ones - including the Children's Crusade and the Moorish Wars - were wars of Catholic agression and greed. But the first was sparked by a war of conquest against neutral territory in Jerusalem by the Egyptians and the threat to Asia Minor by an Turkish despot with designs of conquest. From "The Catholic Encyclopedia":

Moreover, Islam is a religion that was born in blood and perpetuated through conquest and slaughter - it took Christianity several centuries to reach the point that Islam was at when it started.

The Islamic "Religion of Peace" is nowhere to be found in the Q'ran or the Hadiths, it is found in a maverick strand of liberalism that infected Muslims in Moorish Spain, Egypt, and parts of North Africa, where they became stewards of the Greek, Roman, and some older Zoroastrian learning and knowledge that the Christians had destroyed during the tumult that surrounded the rise of Christianity to state religion in he Roman Empire. "Peaceful Islam" is an abberant strain - the Q'ran and Hadiths both advocate holy war in a MILITARY sense. It advocates peace only with: fellow Muslims, and Christians and Jews who live peacably under Islamic Rule. It advocates holy war everywhere else, and with everyone else. Liberal Islam is every bit of accomodationist as is Liberal Christianity (a'la Spong, Tillich, Bultmann, etc.). It recognizes the evil of its roots, but cannot bring itself to condemn them. As Paul Tobin said: "Liberals are atheists without the courage of their convictions."

Hitler certainly **thought** he was a Christian (as you would know, had you ever read Mein Kampf). Whether he was or was using Christianity solely for political gain is something only he knows - and he's dead. What is indisputable is that Hitler followed directly in the footsteps of other men of God - carrying out the progroms that they envisioned and acting in a manner that they precedented. People you yourself idolize, like John Calvin (a self-confessed murderer for the gospel who established the first facist state in Europe) and Martin Luther (who -- after his break from the Catholic Church -- organized and participated in witch burnings and advocated the exterminatoion of the Jews [although, to his credit, he later repented of his genocidal plans, those plans were used as a blueprint by Hitler]).

Yes it is true. I was not implying that the single event 300 years prior was the ONLY reason (and I sincerely apologize if it reads like I was saying that). It sparked a chain of escalating events that ended in the crusades.

Please, read the entire history for yourself. The above citation is linked to the source article, although the best source on the subject is Will Durant's "The Story of Civilization" vol. 11, which is well footnoted to primary sources and the difinitive historical resource of the 20th century.

It's NOT nonsense. Mohammed subdued Mecca and the rest of Arabia in a MILITARY CAMPAIGN and forced Islam upon the conquered.

Secondly, I was not comparing the Q'ran to the Bible and calling the Bible clean. I am a rigorous critic of the genocidal holy wars of the Old Testament, as a look at my post history here and on the "Old Board" archive forum will indicate. I am no apologist, and I resent the implication. I was comparing the Q'ran to the NEW TESTAMENT not to the entire Bible. The NEW TESTAMENT, for all its contemptible doctrines, is far less bloody and agression-oriented than is the Q'ran, and them's just the facts. The NT calls for evangelism, but reserves the right of conquest to God alone (in the epistles and in Revelation), or is claimed by Jesus for himself and his direct followers, but equivocally (in the Gospels).

(Sorry about this being "off-topic" for this particular thread)

Thanks Lokmer, for mentioning Will Durant - while looking for information about him I found this interesting quote:
(from http://www.willdurant.com/bio.htm) :

IIRC, the Qur'an is a fusion of both the old and new testaments, with gnostic gospels thrown in and slight variants on the stories. Comparing the NT to the Qur'an is like comparing Return of the King to the LotR 3-in-1 volume... it's in there, it's just a third of the story. There are gospels from Aberham, Moses, etc., from both the old and new testaments, and there are additional gospels from Mohammed(The last true prophet in their eyes).

There are differences between the two. Some changes make the story less violent, some more.

For example, in the islam version of the story of Aberham and Issac, Issac comes to Aberham and tells him that god came to him in a vision and told him he must sacrifice himself.

So the test of faith was primarily on Issac. Aberham still had to watch his son die, but he wasn't the one BS'ing him up to a mountain saying "Hey, look that way!" and making the blow.

Also, in the Qur'an, Adam and Eve were married. Slight detail, but I find it very significant.

Comparing Islam to Christina is a lot like comparing CNN to Fox. They cover the same events, the same stories... from a different perspective.

If there was the chance for a debate between the two, truth would be found. But pointing to one event and saying "See? They're violent killers!" without that statement biting you in the butt later when christians do the same thing.

Not a problem. I'm actually prepping for a trip on Xmas day and will be out of the loop for a couple of weeks - and although I'm looking forward to it I'm disappointed that you and I started mixing it up in what promises to be a very entertaining and enlightening debate right when I'm on my way out of town. Perhaps we can pick it up in a new thread when I get back?

That's not a bad summarry, but to be fair each Surrah is a sepearate work, as is each book of the Bible. There's a goodly bit of cross-polination - Islam is, after all, a syncretism of X, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and some of the gnostic cults.

My point was more that the tone of the rehtoric in the Q'ran is more immediately demanding of violence, including holy war (not just "inner jihad"), than are the books of the NT.

I quite agree.

I don't know that you'd find much truth in a factual sense. Both books are based upon pagan myths syncretized with philosophy contemporary to the eras in which they were written, with bits of history thrown in here and there.

What I was objecting to was your characterization of Islam as a peaceful religion, when it clearly is not and never has been (with the exception of high moorish culture, which was the first to formulate high monotheism since the time of the Platonists, and was relatively peaceful, prosperous, and in the midst of its golden age when the Crusades mowed it under). It is this variety of Islam that Karen Armstrong idealizes, but the abstract theology of high monotheism has had little impact upon the broader Islamic world and its mandate for holy war against infidels. There is much there that IS laudable and peaceable, but - like Judaism and Christianity - Islam has a "god given" mandate to conquer the world, by the sword if necessary.

Fine by me, that gives me a chance to read up on the websites you gave me.

Ditto for the Bible/NT.

You are correct. However, IIRC, arabia had a lot more enemies surrounding it, so it needed to be a little more militant to survive. They didn't have the luxury of Rome converting to Christianity, they had to do it themselves by force.

Not that it's a valid excuse, it's just an explanation.

In that case, replace it with "Core of the belief system." Or, the account with the least holes?

You get enough witnesses, interrogate them seperately, then compile their statements, you should be able to sift out the erronious reports, find the correct ones, and build a sequence of events.

Sure. I don't want to see that killed by a holy war. But who does?(don't answer that Munari)

It's a religion, that's implied.

Fine by me, that gives me a chance to read up on the websites you gave me.

Ditto for the Bible/NT.

You are correct. However, IIRC, arabia had a lot more enemies surrounding it, so it needed to be a little more militant to survive. They didn't have the luxury of Rome converting to Christianity, they had to do it themselves by force.

Not that it's a valid excuse, it's just an explanation.