America - a dhimmi nation

I asked google http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/love.htm

Let me quote a few lines from that article which I doubt you read in full.

"As mentioned previously in the introduction, Allahu Muhibba or "God is love" is not found among the 99 names of God given in Islam."

"Here is where the strongest point of difference is most pronounced between Christianity and Islam. The Qur'an is a revelation of God's will that is to be obeyed by His creation. The Bible is a revelation of the Person and character of God. It is here where we find what God is like and what that means in our relation to Him. God is Spirit, God is Light, God is Love, are all statements of the revelation of God's person and character."

"So now we come to the crux of why we deemed it important to investigate the Qur'anic teaching on the love of God. What we have observed is that while the Qur'an tells of the love of God, in most cases it is expressed in a negative fashion, "God loves not …" or it is based upon human conditions for its exercise. God loves the one who does good, the pure, the just, the trusting, the patient and persevering, the one who takes up arms to fight in God's cause. But where is there room for a God who initiates love in order to win over the lost and erring? Where is He who loved us while we were yet sinners? Where is there room for the one who was rich, yet for our sakes became poor so that we might be made rich? The contrast is too great to overlook. Could we not also reply that, yes, we too love those who do good and are just and demonstrate good qualities. But that would mean that God only expresses a human love if His love is based on conditions. A revelation of infinite love demands something of the extraordinary, something commiserate with the nature and character of God Himself."

Of course I did not read it in full. I did not even read your quotes in full
I couldn't care less what the Quran or the bible states about love or anything else. My interpretation of your statement was that the Quran had nothing to say about love so I was just curious and bored and googled it.

My point was that the Bible has a GREAT deal to say about Love, most of it in a very positive light. The Quran, doesn't!! Each 'religion' is based on a totally different set of values and philosophies, for want of a better term.

And here I was going to say that another book that write about love without a clue what it is is called "the bible".

Corwin said:

My point was that the Bible has a GREAT deal to say about Love.

Click to expand...

How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

Click to expand...

Riiight

You are aware that your cherrypicked quote actually has no bearing on his statement whatsoever, right? "Contains B" has no bearing on the hypothesis, "Contains A", except in extremely specific situations when A and B cannot physically co-exist.

dteowner said:

You are aware that your cherrypicked quote actually has no bearing on his statement whatsoever, right? "Contains B" has no bearing on the hypothesis, "Contains A", except in extremely specific situations when A and B cannot physically co-exist.

Click to expand...

Actually it's Corwin who cherrypicks. There's a pair of quotes ("love thy neighbor" or "love thy enemy") that in context is little more than rhetoric nonsense amongst a 1500 page manual of hate and prejudice.

JemyM said:

Actually it's Corwin who cherrypicks. There's a pair of quotes ("love thy neighbor" or "love thy enemy") that in context is little more than rhetoric nonsense amongst a 1500 page manual of hate and prejudice.

Click to expand...

Which, true or not, also has no bearing on Tragos' faulty logic.

dteowner said:

Which, true or not, also has no bearing on Tragos' faulty logic.

Click to expand...

He points out an inconsistency in the comment made by Corwin; "My point was that the Bible has a GREAT deal to say about Love, most of it in a very positive light. The Quran, doesn't!! Each 'religion' is based on a totally different set of values and philosophies, for want of a better term."

I have spent time with both tomes critically and they are similar in many ways.
In my own analysis it's almost certain that within the same page as a "positive" passage there will be a handful of questionable, stupid and immoral ones. When someone exaggerates how awesome and good the tome is, it's a question of how much time you wish to dedicate on refuting the point, considering the idolizer made it blatantly clear that they either didn't read it or interpret good in a way you do not.

The shortcut is just to point out passages that most refutes the idea that the tome is a manual of goodness. When this is done a single or a few passages are chosen to make the point since it's not functional to quote the whole tome.

You've got some bias on your face, there…

Now then, perhaps this would work better if I put it in some of the tomes that you choose to idolize, but this will just have to do:
You can show a thousand nasty quotes if you like, but that has no bearing on what Corwin stated. The only way to refute what he said would be to demonstrate a LACK of things to say about love. That actually entails a lot more work, and is probably not worth the effort. That's basic logic, and given the way you love to scream "logical fallacy" from your ivory tower (although I must admit you haven't done that recently) I'm forced to assume that you're choosing to ignore it so that you can spout off about your ongoing anti-religion campaign.

Also, I would venture to say that Corwin has spent FAR more time with that particular tome than you'll ever dream of doing, so it's probably a bad idea to attempt to paint yourself as the expert in this case.

dteowner said:

The only way to refute what he said would be to demonstrate a LACK of things to say about love.
That actually entails a lot more work, and is probably not worth the effort. That's basic logic, and given the way you love to scream "logical fallacy" from your ivory tower (although I must admit you haven't done that recently) I'm forced to assume that you're choosing to ignore it so that you can spout off about your ongoing anti-religion campaign.

Click to expand...

I actually did. I didn't use the expression "rhetoric nonsense" likely. One thing I did in my analysis was to compare context in which quotes are spoken. When it comes to Jesus his words of love is a) always used in political context in attempt to save his own hide or castigate followers b) never used in situations in which there are nothing to be gained. The result is that the Jesus never speaks about love for it's own sake. The definition of love is written by Paul in 1:st Cor 13, which follows and continues with some of the most misogynous and sexist passages in the entire bible in 1:st Cor 11 and 14.

dteowner said:

Also, I would venture to say that Corwin has spent FAR more time with that particular tome than you'll ever dream of doing, so it's probably a bad idea to attempt to paint yourself as the expert in this case.

Click to expand...

I am not the only one who pointed out that he appears as if he never read it at all, but that's another topic.

Be careful Jemy. You could probably exist inside the university for the rest of your life. (Ivory Tower, whatever)
With all those other warm, logical people.

Get to close to the rabbit hole and you might fall in.

Tragos said:

Riiight

Click to expand...

You do realise that wahat is says is common sense about war right? If you go to war, it is in your best interest to kill the children too. Because what child would get revenge on its parent murderer when they grow up? Most athiests understand this is dont know why you dont.



Jemy, it is clear that you havent studied the bible that well because it would be clear if you did some research on the issue it is easy to comprehend. Really studying the bible requires a persons to do some rearch outside the bible about the customs of a given time.

Read abotu the whole issue here:
http://www.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm

Damian said:

Jemy, it is clear that you havent studied the bible that well because it would be clear if you did some research on the issue it is easy to comprehend. Really studying the bible requires a persons to do some rearch outside the bible about the customs of a given time.

Click to expand...

I have studied the bible well, on that I am certain. You see, I haven't just read it, I have researched the Bible through 6 different disciplines for 10 years. You, however, just showed that you haven't studied it or understand it, because you seem to not understand my criticism at all, which you would if you read those pages yourself (which you probably never did).

Damian said:

Read abotu the whole issue here:
http://www.ovc.edu/terry/articles/headcovr.htm

Click to expand...

"The issue"? The link you gave go into great length to solve a Christian issue on whether or not women should cover their heads. The real stinker in 1 Corinthians 11 is the idea that women were made for men and when reading 1 Corinthians 14 I just want to punch that man hard in the teeth for being an misogynic jerk to the extreme.

THE issue I stated was that within a page from a "good" passage you will find a couple of questionable and often quite nasty ones. There's 1500 pages in the bible and quite a lot of awful ideas, comments and passages. My only reference to 11th and 14th (12th is actually not awful) was to mention that they carry some of the most misogynic and sexist passages in the bible, which the article you linked to doesn't resolve at all, and these were found only a few pages from the "definition of love" you find in the 13th.

vurt said:

"And if you think that's slimy, every year the US State Dept. issues a report on the state of human rights in all UN member countries. This year, for the first time, they removed the section on religious freedom. Thus neatly sidestepping the need to acknowledge the violent persecution of Christians since the glorious revolution for freedom and democracy.
"

Click to expand...

Well that's an outright lie. It's a hard one to dispute though - I mean you have to google "US State Department Human Rights Report" and click.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper

It makes numerous references to problems regarding freedom of religion and in some countries specific cases of persecution of christians. Look up say… saudii Arabia.

Perhaps the moron in that video was referring to the separate and more specifically detailed report on religious freedom they put out as well and have put out as a separate document for the past 11 years. That report is done in parallel to this for the most part but is usually released later in the year. The previous report finalized in September of 2011. The report before that was finalized in November of 2010. The final report before that was released in October of 2009. So yeah he's lying when he says it was taken out if this is what he refers to because its a separate report required under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 while the Human Rights Report is required by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Trade Act of 1974.

The broader report does still discuss problems of religious freedom and go into some specifics as it does with other forms of human rights abuse though the religious freedom report is obviously a bit more focused in what it covers. An administration could roll them into a single release - no reason you can't put two reports into the same binder after all. They don't have to release them at the same time and if the in-depth report requires more time then doing it this way makes far more sense then either rushing it or delaying the broader report.

To be clear, I'm not calling you a liar I'm calling the youtuber a liar and a lazy one at that.

Edit:
And now i see this is almost the very first thing covered in that response video

Id like to point out that martyrdom and Christian prosecution is very strongly tied to the belief system and is often drastically exaggerated for political reasons.

Even worse, it's often the case that any persecution will eventually be re-packaged and sold as "Christian persecution". Extermination of Jews under the roman empire = Christian persecution. Oppression of religious minorities due to lack of religious freedom = Christian persecution. Even the nazi's extermination of minority Christian groups (carried out by Christians) = Christian persecution. Throwing out Christians who do missionary work where they shouldn't = Christian persecution. Criticizing Christians = Christian persecution.

It is very important that Christians are in the eyes of the public a persecuted group, no matter it's size, it's own actions and the situation for non-christians in the same situation.

JemyM said:

Even the nazi's extermination of minority Christian groups (carried out by Christians) = Christian persecution.

Click to expand...

Yes. There were Nazi-close Christian groups which believed themselves - in this sense - to be the "only" and "true" Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...ion_of_Jewish_influence_on_German_Church_Life

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Yes. There were Nazi-close Christian groups which believed themselves - in this sense - to be the "only" and "true" Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instit...ion_of_Jewish_influence_on_German_Church_Life

Click to expand...

One of the most thorough academic books on this subject is The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. It gives a thorough walkthrough on how leading nazis interpreted Christianity and how the Bible, Martin Luther and protestant churches were used in the rally for power.

Bibelforscher (Jehovah's Witnesses) were marked with dark purple in the concentration camps.

I once saw a piece of propaganda which was basically a powerpoint document that was meant to be forwarded to friends. In it the powerpoint spoke about the holocaust and claimed "millions of Christians were persecuted" and warned for the upcoming attack by Muslims on Christians. After seeing that document and learning more about the history of not only the holocaust but other instances of "Christian persecution" I have became nauseas whenever someone use this political tactic since calling oneself the victim when one is the main aggressor is probably the most twisted and deranged state of mind out there.

I just want to point out that no one bothered to check the reference that tragos made and my comment about it. It was in psalm 137:9 it was talking about how people were oppressed and getting an extreme amount of hate for the "daughter of bablyon".


As for whether women were made for men, that is what genesis says does it not? I assume that your issue that the man should be the head of the family instead of equality for both sexes. But frankly that doesnt work. Look at all the countries with equality inthe household they have 50% and over divorce rates, while the countries with men as leaders of the household have 1-2% divorce rates. In the 19th century in Australia(according to an athiest friend of mine) when catholicism was popular they enjoyed low divorce rates too.

In exhange for leadership it says in the bible that the man should love the wife as much as the christ loved the church, ie if it came down to it he should willingly give his life for the wife.