4Him:

my brother that is basically my point. The war over Jerusalem is not over land but over the religious implications of the temple mount.

According to you right? An assumption without evidence of the Palestinian people saying thats all they want. You have the right to assume whatever you want to assume, but until you have substantial evidence to back those assumptions, its just a myth. Everybody can say this, can say that, to support their reasons for supporting be it the Palestinians or the Israelites.

Call them freedom fighters or call them terrorists. Call them whatever you choose to. You may stand on the side of Shimon Peres and George Bush and view them as the greatest obstacle to peace in Palestine, or you may choose to look through the eyes of the Palestinians who saw in him the hope of liberation and deliverance from Israeli occupation.

You may choose to remember Ariel Sharon's days as a terrorist, recalling events such as the 1972 Munich Olympic games in which Israeli athletes were murdered or the fact that he was partly responsible for the Israeli invasion and occupation of South Lebanon. You may also choose to recall the fact that the Nobel committee saw in him qualities deserving of a Peace Laureate.

I personally do think both societies deserve to live in peace and harmony, but you may think otherwise and may have your personal vendettas against either side, but all in all whether their reason is because of a vintage temple or territorial. There is one fact that would always be present, the Palestinians are left to suffer and live under sub-human conditions. Each day, Jews are relocated into newly built settlements (or colonies as I prefer to call them) in the West Bank.

The State of Israel is just as guilty. It may not employ suicide bombers (it doesn't need to—its American supplied tanks and F-16s are lethal enough) but it deliberately disenfranchises the Palestinian people, while refusing to abide by international law, which calls for it to return to its pre-defined borders. As long as there is occupation, there would be the rise of several forms of militant, social and ideological movements in Palestine, which would continue to resist such occupation.

I just hope that one day, supporters of either side would be humane to see beyond CNN or BBC or even Al Jazeera.

@4him

4Him:

If it were personal why would virtually all arab nations be on the side of the phoney palestinians? Why are muslims in nigeria also on their side? Would it perchance be related to the common denominator here - islam?

Is the fight over Jerusalem "personal" or a matter of islamic doctrine?

Sir i suggest you do a bit of "logical" study on matters you contribute to.

Here I am thinking for once i was having a debate without sentiments. What have you said?

You are asking why an Arabian nation is supporting another Arabian nation against a jew, and you claimed my logic is impaired?

You are asking why a Muslim in Nigeria is supporting the Arabs in Palestine? I know quiet a few Christians and members of other beliefs and religious groups, that think the Palestinians are being oppressed.

I am pretty amazed that you derived a non stated conclusion by using an analogy of who supports who to argue on something without substance, and claim my logic is impaired? What exactly do you want to say? Say it clearly?

Do you want to say the conflict between the Palestinians and Israelites has something to do with Religion? If so, kindly state a fact, not an assumption.

yes I did get it from wikipedia, and you only knew that because you had to check authority to confirm your supposed knowledge and saw the similarities. What I don't get is the relevance.

Perhaps you did not get my question. There is no evidence to support that sept 11 was orchestrated by the religion Islam. Forget Al Ka-edah or whatever they call themselves.

Please tell me where my argument is impaired, or what I have said exactly that is not correct, so that we can debate from there, and you have not answered my question with material facts yet. Thank you.

4Him:

You don't know about the trial and conviction of Zaccarias Moussaoui . . . I rest my case.

Zaccarias Moussaoui is irrelevant to your answer to my question below.

Logical:

Just curious, did America released evidence to incriminate the Islamic religion or Al-Kaedah? Or maybe I am missing something?

During the trial, Moussaoui initially stated that he was not involved in the September 11 attacks, but that he was planning an attack of his own. Some al-Qaeda members reportedly corroborated Moussaoui's statement to an extent, saying that he was involved in a plot other than September 11, but prosecutors believed that his story had no merit.

According to the Associated Press, three jurors decided Moussaoui had only limited knowledge of the September 11 plot, and three described his role in the attacks as minor, if he had any role at all.

4Him:

America and Al qaeda have released more than enough evidence. A certain Zacarias Moussaoui is serving a life sentence in Colorado for having been a party to the attacks.

Interesting, is this a material evidence, References on the net would be appreciated. We all can say anything of relevance to support our motions, but without evidence it does not have substance. So I would need references to those evidences you talked about here.

4Him:

that to pretend that the Isreali-Palestinian conflict is all about territory is to buy into arab propaganda.

Well they do not agree to co-existing alright, I agree, but the basis is not indoctrinated but rather personal.

4Him:

Correct me if i'm wrong but compatibility is also a personal thing. If compatibility has "nothing to do with personal beliefs" why then do we have people judging their potential partners on the basis of skin color or tribe?

Allow me to ask, but are you trying to rationalize racism and tribalism? Are you saying its alright to be a racist or a tribalist?

4Him:

that is an oversimplification that is begining to border on falsehood. The conflict between Isreal and "palestine" (a concept that is being used as an arab smokescreen) is not territorial.
The westbank and gaza were for 19yrs in the hands of arab nations . . . the "palestinians" did not fight to have a nation then.

They did not fight to have a nation then, but they do now? And yes references are made to their suicide bombings as things perpetuated by the religion Islam in not only forums like this. So you are trying to say, what exactly?

According to "Mark Juergensmeyer " in Wikipedia, Religious terrorism consists of acts that terrify, the definition of which is provided by the witnesses - the ones terrified - and not by the party committing the act; accompanied by either a religious motivation, justification, organization, or world view.

Religion is sometimes used in combination with other factors, and sometimes as the primary motivation. Religious terrorism is intimately connected to current forces of geopolitics.

Dr. Bruce Hoffman in an interview on Religioscope - 22 February 2002, argues that to be considered religious terrorism the perpetrators must use religious scriptures to justify or explain their violent acts or to gain recruits and there must be some sort of clerical figures involved in some leadership role.

imhotep:

When christians are violent, it is usually due to their hard heartedness. They know exactly what the gospels say about such situations.

This is not true. Research on the following.

1. [/b]The Nagaland Rebels in Nagaland, northeastern India.
[b]2. The White Eagles in Serbia
3.[/b]Group in Poso, Indonesia
[b]4.[/b]God's Army
[b]5.[/b]Ku Klux Klan
[b]6.[/b]The Lord's Resistance Army
[b]7.[/b]National Liberation Front of Tripura
[b]8.[/b]Christian Identity
[b]9. Christian Patriots
10. Lambs of Christ
11. Army of God

There is more, but I guess this is enough to educate you on religious terrorism perpetuated using Christianity.

imhotep:

And what does Jannat hold for those behind the WTC plane hijacks/crashes that killed thousands of innocent people?

Just curious, did America released evidence to incriminate the Islamic religion or Al-Kaedah? Or maybe I am missing something?

imhotep:

What does the koran have to say about (all done while exclaiming: 'Allah hu akbar!')
- hijacking aeroplanes
- slashing people's throats & cutting off heads
- suicide bombing
- religious riots in which non-muslims are killed
- spreading islam by dint of jihad

Does the koran actually endorse all these?

Based on research, Quran does not support any of the aforementioned. Otherwise every Muslim you come across would be celebrating any successful attack, instead of saying no its not ok, or rather the religion Islam forbids it.

Don't you think its amazing that you are yet to come across a Muslim that would tell you the victims of any terrorist attack, actually deserve it and its acceptable according to their teachings?

Nevertheless we must not leave the basis of the accusation unattended too. There is a doctrine of "substitutionary retaliation," in the Islamic religion, and most people tend to use that as the evidence against the Quran, or in favor of their argument that the Quran actually supports such heinous crime.

In the religion Islam (but not in Christianity) retaliation is authorized to avenge an injury. However, we must be aware of the following :-

1. That the retaliation must be directed toward the guilty individual(s),
2. The retaliation must be proportional to the injury, and it must not exceed the limits set by their teachings.

The Qur'an does not support substitutionary retaliation against individuals who are innocent of any offense.

Here are quotations to support the fact:-
[2.178] [/b]O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement.

[b][2.179] And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.

[2.194] The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

The doctrine of "substitutionary retaliation" is completely unjust, similar to the injustice of cutting off the hand of a random person in a village as punishment for a theft, when the actual villager who committed the crime could not be captured.



No matter what justification for it may exist, terrorism always exceeds the limits set by the Quran, because terrorism deliberately intends to kill innocent people.

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

[18.74] So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him. (Musa) said: Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter? Certainly you have done an evil thing.


So how does this connect with Terrorism?

The United States does not fight against Allah or against Islam or Hinduism or Judaism or Shinto or Buddhism or Christianity or Paganism or any other religion whatsoever. By its Constitution and all its laws, the United States must remain neutral regarding religion.


An offense against against an Islamic-majority country is not the same thing as an attack on the Islamic religion, for there have always been many reasons for countries to go to war, without regard to religion.

In the war between Iraq and Iran, both countries were Islamic-majority countries. Neither country was fighting against Islam, but they had their own reasons to fight, apart from religion.

Similarly, the fight between Israel and Palestine is not a fight between Judaism and Islam, but is, instead, a territorial conflict between a Judaism-majority country and an Islamic-majority country.

IDINRETE:

if i may second Jagunlabi, Logical i applaud you but one thing i beg to differ is that the bible is not a nice book; IT IS A VERY VERY BAD BOOK, those[i] idiotais [/i] that were inspired to write it were very ignorant of science, morality, astronomy, justice, et al plus whoever inspired them to write it

Well maybe that is so. But do understand my context of saying its nice. It grows around the evolution of God according to the bible, and perhaps the complexity of the variations, nothing more.

Religious doctrine said this, religious doctrine says that, it all goes around the same circle. Religion has caused so much mayhem and atrocities in the world today, thats is very sad that the motion is always backed by the same doctrine, itself. Be it discrimination or crime against humanity. I think believing in God is a personal thing, it maybe have something to do with values but it has nothing to do with living with each other or amongst each other in peace and harmony. Nor does it have anything to do with respecting each others views and opinions and allowing each other to his or her own.

Why do I say so?
Humanity was created not to have the same opinion, culture and values or creed. We are created in different society with different cultural norms. We are suppose to respect each others varied values and opinions otherwise why do we scream freedom when we want to have our own rights to do something or have something.

why do we even get educated, if we believe that everybody has to think or has to share the same values with us?

A civilized society is that which encourages freedom of opinion and beliefs and that which encourages variety in values as long as it conforms to the basic rules and laws that ensures peace and harmony to that society. A civilized person is a person that shares that value.

I don't know the kind of education people with religious engraved dogma usually have, because sometimes i tend to think religion is cultism. The mindset of people with such a dogma do amaze me, especially the way they hate or dislike the people that do not share the same beliefs and opinions with them. Its very pathetic.

Compatibility goes in the realms of being able to live with each other based on certain standards and has nothing to do with personal beliefs such as religion. I think religion is a personal thing.

Gamine:

If one could give me the disadvantages of being a christian

i will consider being an atheist

I would just give you a few good reasons.

1. Christianity promotes discrimination against those that do not believe in its doctrines.
Is it is morally right for you to discriminate against other people that do not share the same personal beliefs?

2. Christianity seems to think everything that is living is a sin and this is very dangerous.
Do you think it is right to assume that a new born baby comes to this world with sin from someone 100,000+ years ago. Where does innocence stand in Christianity?
Why does Christianity believe that I am responsible for someone else's sins?


3. Christianity promotes a living being known as Satan that is responsible for all sin's made by man be it directly or indirectly. When someone commits a crime or a heinous act, he blames the devil and has the right to do so. This is very dangerous.

4. Christians still keep the old testament, and use it whenever it suits them yet dismiss it whenever it doesn't suit them, even though the new testament is supposed to upgrade it. This is very dangerous too, because the old testament is full of a lot of heinous crimes and atrocities beyond human imagination.

imhotep:

Olabowale has a body and a soul.

Does this mean there are two Olabowales on earth

Impressive logical approach, to explaining the concept of Christians three God in One. Nevertheless your logic does not agree with what other religions or non religious beliefs, believe in. Yet its very sound and logical.

O my bad, did you really read my post or you choose to cast a blind eye towards the usage of [b]Some [/b]in my sentence construct. It is very accurate, or you find it offensive? That some Muslims can be very arrogant? Ah you wanted me to say "Some Christians are too". Semantics but irrelevant, yet accurate. Ah wait a minute, it was in your quote . I hereby rest my case.

Quite interesting, how religion can create discrimination inside the heart of those that follows its path. Sad

@olabowale
I assumed that Christianity is always right? What makes you say so? Curious

science is not a belief, so I am bit confused with the insinuations here. Nevertheless I would say this :- People create bombs, because science makes it possible to do so; But people do not launch bombs because science said so or science postulates that killing innocent lives is alright and its rational to do so.

People rather launch bombs for personal agendas to suit their motives or maybe personal needs, which has nothing to do with science.

One more thing I would like to say, when it comes to referencing marriages that occurred 1000+ years ago. We should not use present acceptable social norms to evaluate them. We should use the acceptable social norms of that particular time to evaluate that particular time even if it does not seat with our beliefs and social norms.

Today a good analogy, would be : A Nigerian man decided to spank his disobedient son's buttocks in Nigeria. They moved to the US one year later, and the Child after being aware of the law on child protection, decides to sue his father for child abuse under the relative child protection law.

The question is, is it normal within Nigerian culture to spank a disobedient child? Would it be classified child abuse in Nigeria? Would it be fair for the judge in the US to make a ruling on the father for the act which the father committed in a society that practices it and think its a method of deterrent?

This is relevant to this case here in the context of Mohammad in Arabia 1000+ years ago. Was it normal for people in Arabia 1000+ years ago to marry 10 year old or 12 year old girls? Do we have evidence to prove otherwise? Did he get away with a heinous crime? Where young girls 1000+ years ago in Arabia rebelling against such heinous crime? Did they accept the cultural norm? Did they run away from their husbands because they were displeased? Or did they embrace it because thats what their culture is?

The question goes on and on, and its very imperative that we do answer those questions before we decide to judge a persons practice 1000+ years ago. Yes I agree today we have evolved to a more tolerable, mature, and more culturally advanced civilization, but would it be fair for us to judge a 1000+ year old civilization with our present advanced social acceptable norms and laws.

What is the link between a persons Facial framework or the representation of that persons supposed presentable outlook to that particular persons chosen beliefs about a deity or religion? I am lost here? Or is it an African thing?

Yes Some Muslims are very arrogant when they defend their beliefs, Some Christians can be too. I just wished they could both be humble.

Well I don't believe in religion anymore, rather I believe in the concept of an existing deity beyond our eye's focal point, not microscopic but of higher should i say existence?

You see I treat religion as philosophy to safeguard human harmony and respect, but something bothers me with their interpretation of God. It goes into the relativity of prayers, miracles (what i call magic), or things in that context to attest for the existence of God.

I for one look at it from a different angle. I see God as my creator, because there has not been one single evidence produced by any research to prove that humans don't have a creator nor a source to their existence. I think the rational behind that is pretty simple. The concept of God should fall between the understanding that every single object and substance in this world has a source, it just doesn't come out of emptiness, there must be a reaction. In the case of a child, the father and the mother, hormonal reaction, and some special tingle from an existence beyond the understanding of human intellectuality.

The Bible is not a book but a collection of very different books, hence its possible that such a quotation was made in the old testament. What most people tend to forget or rather not know is, the bible is never a God's word book, God Say this, God say that, sortof book. Rather the bible is a reference to stories or rather the historic past with contextual quotes made during that time or after that time.

Some people would agree that The God of the Old Testament is a God of wrath while the God of the New Testament is a God of love. Some people wouldn't, they would say its the same God. Nevertheless In reality, God never evolved. It was human understanding of the nature of God that evolved, hence the transformation from the vengeful and unpleasant Yahweh to the loving and kind God the Father. The Bible is a compilation of Jewish/Christian understanding of a Deity over centuries. Thus, while it was okay to stone someone to death for adultery in the Old Testament, the New Testament is filled with nothing but love, love, love. Same God? Then why such different laws?


Some people like Muslims would scream contradictions when it suits the context and forget the source of the bible and the time. The same Muslims ironically would use the origin of the bible as a stand to dismiss its weight, why not applying that to the variations from the old to the new.

Christianity is not a perfect religion, far from it, so is Islam, considering its infested with Arabian culture and a lot of its practices can be debated against. What amazes me the most, is the links between the old testament and the Quran, pretty interesting it can be.

The question that I am pondering now on is :- "Is Evolution cyclical?" or "Is the understanding of people about God cyclical". This is in context with the Islam that was preached 150 years after the death of the prophet of the religion Islam. Was it the same Islam that was practiced by this man? Or was it changed? Do remember that this religion was the one that saved Arabia from its dark ways, back then from their barbaric acts such as "burying their daughters alive" to other indecent, degrading social and moral customs.

Why do some muslims wear Jumper trousers.

All Muslims don't wear jumper trousers , "some muslims" do, They are a group known as "izalatul bidiah wa akhlil sunnah" which means we detest innovation and abide by the principles of the sunnah . Can be literally translated as they only approve of the prophet of Islam's culture that is the Arabian culture infested into the religion Islam. Anything apart from his culture is innovation otherwise known as bidi'a and it should be condemned.

Nevertheless there is actually two reasons for that according to some hadiths.

1. The prophet of Islam classifies the trousers falling below the ankle as an act of arrogance hence he told his kinsfolks to fold their trousers and stop stepping on the edges.
2. The prophet of Islam said that if the trousers go below the ankle, the ankle on the day of judgment would be burnt in fire. Maybe a scare tactics, who knows?

The Bible is a nice book. It teaches—to some extent—morality and guidance. But it was not revealed by a Deity. It was written by inspired men and maybe women, like all other books. These men and women based their values on the understanding of their time. Going through the Bible, one is able to capture a perfect evolutionary process in theology. We begin with Yahweh, a tribalistic God, who loves the Hebrews and hates other people. This God later evolves to become the Father of Jesus Christ who surprisingly loves all people. How strange!

In reality, God never evolved. It was human understanding of the nature of God that evolved, hence the transformation from the vengeful and unpleasant Yahweh to the loving and kind God the Father. The Bible is a compilation of Jewish/Christian understanding of a Deity over centuries. Thus, while it was okay to stone someone to death for adultery in the Old Testament, the New Testament is filled with nothing but love, love, love. Same God? Then why such different laws?

I could go on and on but let me end with this: in what language were the Gospels written? Some scholars think in Aramaic (the language of Jesus). But where are the original Aramaic texts? The fact is, it is becoming increasingly accepted that the Gospels were originally written in Greek! Yes Greek, and the oldest texts we have are all in Greek. Not a single Aramaic codex is known. So, how could fishermen who probably barely knew how to read and write Aramaic, learn not only how to write in Greek but also how to state: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.”

Sounds rather Aristotelian doesn’t it? It sure does, because the Gospels are most likely nothing but personified forms of mystical stories that existed long before they were written. Replace Mithras, Horus or Krishna with Jesus. Modify the theme a bit and change the setting from India or Egypt to Palestine, and you have a perfect story. Of course, the story has to be set to real history, so you choose as the time when Palestine was under Roman occupation. Once in a while you mess up so much with history, like asserting that Herod the Great existed at the same time as Caesar Augustus (according to Matthew’s Gospel) because your story isn’t based on facts but on ancient myths.

Let those who are interested study history and other religions and find things out for themselves.I do not subscribe to dogmatic theology based on a “Word of God”.

@babyosisi
I am just who I am always are, objective and reasonable, with sincere intentions and from what I found out, you are confused my dear.

@davidlyan
Respect for other peoples belief and religion is one thing that christianity certainly doesnt preach. Calling other peoples God blood thirsty and all. Well I classify you as a hating bigot, who shameless use words without questioning his supposed faith, hence I wouldnt say much more than that in regards.

Some people, would quote that a Muslim confess to support their belief and attest that , and that the confession statement should be used to qualify the Muslims, all over the world. Addressed as an authoritative source.

Now some Muslims do the same in this thread, and interestingly enough, they apply the sense of reasoning that they choose not to apply when they are committing the same slanter.

I find this very interesting

My say to this Christian that confesses is pretty simple, if what he says has valid religious backings in regards to original doctrine plus facts, then it is substantial otherwise it should be rejected.

@babyosisi and davidylan

Doing what you do best, attacking personality rather than talking about what the thread starteer said. Have you heared of what they call, the adhominem fallacy? You might want to read that, might educate you

m4malik:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23-24).

I am just interested in the last quotation, does it mean that God is unfair, considering the fact that he uses one person's sin to punish others, in this case the entire humanity?

Yes? Why?
No? Also why?

Please if you feel that you do not have an answer, just ignore it, I do not have time to be addressing personality attacks. Thank you.