Why do Muslims have such a hard-on against Jews?

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Amol

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Amol
Muslims don't like anybody except Muslims . . . .

Even when India was created, they seperated it into India and Pakistan. India was formed on the basis that everyone was created equal, while Pakistan said that Muslims could not live peacefully with Hindus

Umm, the same goes for Christians, Jews and Hindus too, what is your point?

When it comes to who are most intolerant it is the fundies of ALL of those religions, it is not unique to Islam.

haha, did you even read my post? Hindus don't mind living with Buddhists, Muslims, Christians or Jews . . .

Those Tamil Tigers who are predominantly Hindu don't seem to be able to get along well with those Sinhalese who are predominantly Buddhist.

Muslims & others in India, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. seem to live without too many problems either except for the occassional communal violence.

:Q Shocking! A sane post from CanOWorms

(Y)

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: theblooms

Originally posted by: Klixxer
theblooms seems to have lost his grip after his first post and now he's only rambling, thank you for your advice, i will take it.

Take care.

Perfect. I make arguments and back them up with hard evidence, therefore I have lost my grip, or I am way out there. I guess I'm out there because I want the USA to return to its roots like the Founding Fathers had set up.

Now THERES a way to respond to an argument, call the other person a name. I hear it all the time on the radio, when people call Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly names, and now it has happend to me. I feel special!

And to Sultan, I will respect your request to end the argument. At least you never called me names.

Michael

Yo, I never requested as such, I actually asked you to reply. And I also wondered if I made any difference to your perspectives. Carry on please.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: theblooms

Originally posted by: Klixxer
theblooms seems to have lost his grip after his first post and now he's only rambling, thank you for your advice, i will take it.

Take care.

Perfect. I make arguments and back them up with hard evidence, therefore I have lost my grip, or I am way out there. I guess I'm out there because I want the USA to return to its roots like the Founding Fathers had set up.

Now THERES a way to respond to an argument, call the other person a name. I hear it all the time on the radio, when people call Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly names, and now it has happend to me. I feel special!

And to Sultan, I will respect your request to end the argument. At least you never called me names.

Michael

I never called you a name... but you are a Conservative parrot... completely closed minded, and firmly purchased into the Libertarian = good everyone else = evil. Arguing with you is like arguing with Bin Laden... absolutely unswayable. You believe Socialism is a great evil, when in reality it is simply a different economic system... one which millions of europeans are quite happy with. As an american... I prefer the American system, I think in my case it allows for a better life. This does not make the Netherlands some kind of Stalinist state... it's a matter of preference and not good and evil.

Having said that... I do agree in part with your assessment of militant Islam, and terrorism. The only solution is freedom in the middle east. But like rextilleon said... we're looking at a hundred year struggle, and it remains to see if the soft western world has the nutz to go through with it.

Try to step outside your good and evil box, and use critical thinking skills.

-Max

Whats this about "militant" Islam? There's no such thing. There are militants, and there is Islam. Why do you insist on labelling a religion with a connotation of violence? Those who use the name of religion to commit acts of violence are perverts, call them that. Middle East has plenty of freedom, and if there's more needed, let the Middle Eastern people speak up. Why do we Americans have such a motivation to "free" others? Do you (meaning Americans who hold the same mindset) have a superiority complex or something?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: cquark

Ok, so the New Testament is NOT the word of God???

Even Islam doesn't claim that the Qu'ran was written by God's hand directly. It was delivered indirectly to Mohammed, who only gave it verbally to his followers who eventually wrote it down. It's actually more indirect than the Christian claim that Jesus, who was God, gave his teachings verbally to his followers who wrote down their accounts.

A Jew is a follower of Judaism. Like Muslims are followers of Islam. First time I heard anyone claim Jewish is a etnicity.

Jew is (and has been for the last century) the commonly used term in English for both the ethnicity and a follower of the religion of Judaism.

I am alway amazed by this, people try to claim to know what a Jew is better than the state of Israel? According to Israel and most Jews i am a Jew because of my heritage i have the right to be in Israel and will automatically become a citizen there if i were to move there.

Is anyone going to call Israel and tell them they don't know what a Jew is?

Isreal uses that definition of Jew to keep the arabs from having more power. Kind of like how in slavory a child of a black salve is by definition black even if the person looks white and is only a very small percentage black.

Now this is just ridiculous... Israel uses that definition, because the very purpose for the existance of the state of Israel is as a safe haven, and homeland for the jewish people. What good is a jewish homeland, if you can't even figure out what a jew is. Secondly, slavery was an evil practice using race as an excuse to use forced labor. Israel is not enslaving anyone, and furthermore... being a Jew is not a race... there are Arab Jews. Judaism is a culture, nation, and religion all rolled up into one. Israel's definition of a who a jew is, is based upon jewish law.

-Max

So basically Israel is home for the Jews? What about non-Jews? They cant be part of Israel?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: theblooms

Originally posted by: Klixxer
theblooms seems to have lost his grip after his first post and now he's only rambling, thank you for your advice, i will take it.

Take care.

Perfect. I make arguments and back them up with hard evidence, therefore I have lost my grip, or I am way out there. I guess I'm out there because I want the USA to return to its roots like the Founding Fathers had set up.

Now THERES a way to respond to an argument, call the other person a name. I hear it all the time on the radio, when people call Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly names, and now it has happend to me. I feel special!

And to Sultan, I will respect your request to end the argument. At least you never called me names.

Michael

I never called you a name... but you are a Conservative parrot... completely closed minded, and firmly purchased into the Libertarian = good everyone else = evil. Arguing with you is like arguing with Bin Laden... absolutely unswayable. You believe Socialism is a great evil, when in reality it is simply a different economic system... one which millions of europeans are quite happy with. As an american... I prefer the American system, I think in my case it allows for a better life. This does not make the Netherlands some kind of Stalinist state... it's a matter of preference and not good and evil.

Having said that... I do agree in part with your assessment of militant Islam, and terrorism. The only solution is freedom in the middle east. But like rextilleon said... we're looking at a hundred year struggle, and it remains to see if the soft western world has the nutz to go through with it.

Try to step outside your good and evil box, and use critical thinking skills.

-Max

Whats this about "militant" Islam? There's no such thing. There are militants, and there is Islam. Why do you insist on labelling a religion with a connotation of violence? Those who use the name of religion to commit acts of violence are perverts, call them that. Middle East has plenty of freedom, and if there's more needed, let the Middle Eastern people speak up. Why do we Americans have such a motivation to "free" others? Do you (meaning Americans who hold the same mindset) have a superiority complex or something?

you deny the militancy of islam?

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/1100.htm

much more in the book "end of faith" by sam harris.

its funny how reasonable people suddenly lose all ability to reason when it comes to religion. one must pretend that all religions are indeed equal, in the face of all evidence. it is a politically correct dogma. so there are no religions more prone to militancy, because that would be politically incorrect

 

[rextilleon]

Sultan-just shows how little you know---there are non-Jews living in Israel with full rights of citizenship. The Jews will never allow a Muslim majority to take over the country---they don't want an Ayatollah running the country.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: theblooms

Originally posted by: Klixxer
theblooms seems to have lost his grip after his first post and now he's only rambling, thank you for your advice, i will take it.

Take care.

Perfect. I make arguments and back them up with hard evidence, therefore I have lost my grip, or I am way out there. I guess I'm out there because I want the USA to return to its roots like the Founding Fathers had set up.

Now THERES a way to respond to an argument, call the other person a name. I hear it all the time on the radio, when people call Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly names, and now it has happend to me. I feel special!

And to Sultan, I will respect your request to end the argument. At least you never called me names.

Michael

I never called you a name... but you are a Conservative parrot... completely closed minded, and firmly purchased into the Libertarian = good everyone else = evil. Arguing with you is like arguing with Bin Laden... absolutely unswayable. You believe Socialism is a great evil, when in reality it is simply a different economic system... one which millions of europeans are quite happy with. As an american... I prefer the American system, I think in my case it allows for a better life. This does not make the Netherlands some kind of Stalinist state... it's a matter of preference and not good and evil.

Having said that... I do agree in part with your assessment of militant Islam, and terrorism. The only solution is freedom in the middle east. But like rextilleon said... we're looking at a hundred year struggle, and it remains to see if the soft western world has the nutz to go through with it.

Try to step outside your good and evil box, and use critical thinking skills.

-Max

Whats this about "militant" Islam? There's no such thing. There are militants, and there is Islam. Why do you insist on labelling a religion with a connotation of violence? Those who use the name of religion to commit acts of violence are perverts, call them that. Middle East has plenty of freedom, and if there's more needed, let the Middle Eastern people speak up. Why do we Americans have such a motivation to "free" others? Do you (meaning Americans who hold the same mindset) have a superiority complex or something?

The term militant islam is not reffering to all of islam. But, it is describing an extreme wing of islam that practices violent attacks to get its way. Its not unique to islam. There are fringe christian groups here in the US that are "militant".

As to our motivation to free others. I think the war in Iraq has been a harsh wake up call to us that not everyone shares our values.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: cquark

Ok, so the New Testament is NOT the word of God???

Even Islam doesn't claim that the Qu'ran was written by God's hand directly. It was delivered indirectly to Mohammed, who only gave it verbally to his followers who eventually wrote it down. It's actually more indirect than the Christian claim that Jesus, who was God, gave his teachings verbally to his followers who wrote down their accounts.

A Jew is a follower of Judaism. Like Muslims are followers of Islam. First time I heard anyone claim Jewish is a etnicity.

Jew is (and has been for the last century) the commonly used term in English for both the ethnicity and a follower of the religion of Judaism.

I am alway amazed by this, people try to claim to know what a Jew is better than the state of Israel? According to Israel and most Jews i am a Jew because of my heritage i have the right to be in Israel and will automatically become a citizen there if i were to move there.

Is anyone going to call Israel and tell them they don't know what a Jew is?

Isreal uses that definition of Jew to keep the arabs from having more power. Kind of like how in slavory a child of a black salve is by definition black even if the person looks white and is only a very small percentage black.

Now this is just ridiculous... Israel uses that definition, because the very purpose for the existance of the state of Israel is as a safe haven, and homeland for the jewish people. What good is a jewish homeland, if you can't even figure out what a jew is. Secondly, slavery was an evil practice using race as an excuse to use forced labor. Israel is not enslaving anyone, and furthermore... being a Jew is not a race... there are Arab Jews. Judaism is a culture, nation, and religion all rolled up into one. Israel's definition of a who a jew is, is based upon jewish law.

-Max

That is my point jew isn't a race anymore then salves are a race. They both use the same rule that the child born to a jew or slave is a jew or slave respectivly. Additionly using isreal definition isn't valid because they need people sympethicit to the jewish state to move there to keep the arabs living there from getting to much power.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
Sultan-just shows how little you know---there are non-Jews living in Israel with full rights of citizenship. The Jews will never allow a Muslim majority to take over the country---they don't want an Ayatollah running the country.

This again shows your lack of comprehension of basic English. Read my post again before trolling.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: cquark

Ok, so the New Testament is NOT the word of God???

Even Islam doesn't claim that the Qu'ran was written by God's hand directly. It was delivered indirectly to Mohammed, who only gave it verbally to his followers who eventually wrote it down. It's actually more indirect than the Christian claim that Jesus, who was God, gave his teachings verbally to his followers who wrote down their accounts.

A Jew is a follower of Judaism. Like Muslims are followers of Islam. First time I heard anyone claim Jewish is a etnicity.

Jew is (and has been for the last century) the commonly used term in English for both the ethnicity and a follower of the religion of Judaism.

I am alway amazed by this, people try to claim to know what a Jew is better than the state of Israel? According to Israel and most Jews i am a Jew because of my heritage i have the right to be in Israel and will automatically become a citizen there if i were to move there.

Is anyone going to call Israel and tell them they don't know what a Jew is?

Isreal uses that definition of Jew to keep the arabs from having more power. Kind of like how in slavory a child of a black salve is by definition black even if the person looks white and is only a very small percentage black.

Now this is just ridiculous... Israel uses that definition, because the very purpose for the existance of the state of Israel is as a safe haven, and homeland for the jewish people. What good is a jewish homeland, if you can't even figure out what a jew is. Secondly, slavery was an evil practice using race as an excuse to use forced labor. Israel is not enslaving anyone, and furthermore... being a Jew is not a race... there are Arab Jews. Judaism is a culture, nation, and religion all rolled up into one. Israel's definition of a who a jew is, is based upon jewish law.

-Max

That is my point jew isn't a race anymore then salves are a race. They both use the same rule that the child born to a jew or slave is a jew or slave respectivly. Additionly using isreal definition isn't valid because they need people sympethicit to the jewish state to move there to keep the arabs living there from getting to much power.

Well if they were just looking for israel sympathizers to offset arab power, then they'd be better of recruiting christians. The PURPOSE of zionism is to get jews to Israel. Thats why Israel exists. The Arab presence in Israel is a problem because they are a different nationality... and if they gained a majority, Israel wouldn't be Israel anymore, it would become Palestine.

-Max

 

[cquark]

Ofcourse Islam doesnt claim that the Quran was written by God's HAND directly, but it IS the word of God so believe the Muslims. This doesnt answer my question though. Who are the people you named? Saints? Were they Jews or Christians? Are they attributed with starting the religion of Christianity? If Jews believed in Jesus as being God and had to crucify him, why Christianity at all?

Christians likewise claim that their gospels are the word of God. The people named above are both Jews and Christians. Supposedly, they're Apostles (and thus also saints), but as with the Qu'ran, no one knows who actually wrote the Gospels down. All we have is tradition in either case.

Again, what kind of ethnicity is Jew? This is a totally new meaning of the word.

No, it's not a new meaning of the word. It's both the traditional meaning of the word and the one we find today on dictionary.com:

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.

Even the primary usage of the word jew isn't limited solely to religion.

 

[rextilleon]

So basically Israel is home for the Jews? What about non-Jews?

Hey, better to be called a troll then to be cursed out--(your usual course of response)----
I'm just quoting you--dont kill the messenger. You claim to be a Jew but you dont have the faintest idea of what Judaism is or is not, what Israel is or is not---Me thinks you need to read!

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
So basically Israel is home for the Jews? What about non-Jews?

Hey, better to be called a troll then to be cursed out--(your usual course of response)----
I'm just quoting you--dont kill the messenger. You claim to be a Jew but you dont have the faintest idea of what Judaism is or is not, what Israel is or is not---Me thinks you need to read!

rex.... dude... Sultan is not, nor has he ever claimed to be a jew. Last I checked he's a Muslim from Pakistan.

Methinks you need to get a bit more used to the forums navigation, so you can understand who is posting what...

-Max

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: rextilleon
So basically Israel is home for the Jews? What about non-Jews?

Hey, better to be called a troll then to be cursed out--(your usual course of response)----
I'm just quoting you--dont kill the messenger. You claim to be a Jew but you dont have the faintest idea of what Judaism is or is not, what Israel is or is not---Me thinks you need to read!

lol
for everyone who thinks rextilleon is of a sound mind, the above should be an eye-opener. I am not a Jew. I call retards what they are. I do not curse out you troll.
I asked a question regarding what Max said. Do you know what question marks are? They look like this -> "?"

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Amol

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: Amol
Muslims don't like anybody except Muslims . . . .

Even when India was created, they seperated it into India and Pakistan. India was formed on the basis that everyone was created equal, while Pakistan said that Muslims could not live peacefully with Hindus

Umm, the same goes for Christians, Jews and Hindus too, what is your point?

When it comes to who are most intolerant it is the fundies of ALL of those religions, it is not unique to Islam.

haha, did you even read my post? Hindus don't mind living with Buddhists, Muslims, Christians or Jews . . .

Those Tamil Tigers who are predominantly Hindu don't seem to be able to get along well with those Sinhalese who are predominantly Buddhist.

Muslims & others in India, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. seem to live without too many problems either except for the occassional communal violence.

:Q Shocking! A sane post from CanOWorms

(Y)

If you don't know jack squat about the Tamil Tigers situation STFU :| While the LTTE is about as despicable an organization as could be, the civil war in Sri Lanka is NOT a religious one. The injustices the Sinhalese majority heaped on the Tamil minority cannot be quantified in a few posts. Search the web for the sequence of events. Sri Lankan Buddhists give a bad name to Buddhism - but the issue is primarily lingual and not religious.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: theblooms

Originally posted by: Klixxer
theblooms seems to have lost his grip after his first post and now he's only rambling, thank you for your advice, i will take it.

Take care.

Perfect. I make arguments and back them up with hard evidence, therefore I have lost my grip, or I am way out there. I guess I'm out there because I want the USA to return to its roots like the Founding Fathers had set up.

Now THERES a way to respond to an argument, call the other person a name. I hear it all the time on the radio, when people call Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly names, and now it has happend to me. I feel special!

And to Sultan, I will respect your request to end the argument. At least you never called me names.

Michael

I never called you a name... but you are a Conservative parrot... completely closed minded, and firmly purchased into the Libertarian = good everyone else = evil. Arguing with you is like arguing with Bin Laden... absolutely unswayable. You believe Socialism is a great evil, when in reality it is simply a different economic system... one which millions of europeans are quite happy with. As an american... I prefer the American system, I think in my case it allows for a better life. This does not make the Netherlands some kind of Stalinist state... it's a matter of preference and not good and evil.

Having said that... I do agree in part with your assessment of militant Islam, and terrorism. The only solution is freedom in the middle east. But like rextilleon said... we're looking at a hundred year struggle, and it remains to see if the soft western world has the nutz to go through with it.

Try to step outside your good and evil box, and use critical thinking skills.

-Max

Whats this about "militant" Islam? There's no such thing. There are militants, and there is Islam. Why do you insist on labelling a religion with a connotation of violence? Those who use the name of religion to commit acts of violence are perverts, call them that. Middle East has plenty of freedom, and if there's more needed, let the Middle Eastern people speak up. Why do we Americans have such a motivation to "free" others? Do you (meaning Americans who hold the same mindset) have a superiority complex or something?

you deny the militancy of islam?

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/1100.htm

much more in the book "end of faith" by sam harris.

its funny how reasonable people suddenly lose all ability to reason when it comes to religion. one must pretend that all religions are indeed equal, in the face of all evidence. it is a politically correct dogma. so there are no religions more prone to militancy, because that would be politically incorrect

Yes, I deny the "militancy" of Islam. Your link is to an active Christian ministry run by an unknown person. You post this link of some Christian activist who degrade another religion by associating violence with the religion's teaching and there are some on this board who claim hatred is being preached in Masjids around the world. Come on man, if what this website says is not seeding your mind of hatred against Muslims, you're lying to yourself.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: rextilleon
So basically Israel is home for the Jews? What about non-Jews?

Hey, better to be called a troll then to be cursed out--(your usual course of response)----
I'm just quoting you--dont kill the messenger. You claim to be a Jew but you dont have the faintest idea of what Judaism is or is not, what Israel is or is not---Me thinks you need to read!

lol
for everyone who thinks rextilleon is of a sound mind, the above should be an eye-opener. I am not a Jew. I call retards what they are. I do not curse out you troll.
I asked a question regarding what Max said. Do you know what question marks are? They look like this -> "?"

BTW to respond to your question... Non-jews currently residing in Israel are equal citzens. But the idea behind Israel is that Jews are a nation of people, who are dispersed all over the world. Imagine for example if Pakistan was destroyed... and then refounded... your first responsibility would be getting your pakistani citzens back. Israel sees jewish immigration as repatriating rather than simply immigrating.

-Max

 

[Sultan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ofcourse Islam doesnt claim that the Quran was written by God's HAND directly, but it IS the word of God so believe the Muslims. This doesnt answer my question though. Who are the people you named? Saints? Were they Jews or Christians? Are they attributed with starting the religion of Christianity? If Jews believed in Jesus as being God and had to crucify him, why Christianity at all?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christians likewise claim that their gospels are the word of God. The people named above are both Jews and Christians. Supposedly, they're Apostles (and thus also saints), but as with the Qu'ran, no one knows who actually wrote the Gospels down. All we have is tradition in either case.

Did you not say "the books themselves don't make a claim as to their authorship and do not offer a first person point of view. We don't know who wrote them."? I believe the Bible has some 26000 different versions. How is that possible? You didnt respond to my question: "Are they attributed with starting the religion of Christianity? If Jews believed in Jesus as being God and had to crucify him, why Christianity at all?".

As regards to the Quran, it was voiced by Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions memorized those words by heart, wrote it down, and the compilation was completed by Caliph Osman. Since then, the words of Quran have been preserved by thousands, if not millions of Muslims who have memorized it. Tradition on the other hand is referred to as Sunnah and Hadith (the practices and words of Muhammad). They are the second source of Islamic law. They are definitely traditions, while the Quran is not.

No, it's not a new meaning of the word. It's both the traditional meaning of the word and the one we find today on dictionary.com:

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.

Even the primary usage of the word jew isn't limited solely to religion.

So being a Jew does not mean you are a follower of Judaism? I know there are conformist Muslims and non-conformists, but being Muslim means one who has descended from the follower of Islam. Would not being a Jew imply the same, whether you are a conformist Jew or a non-conformist? There are non-semitic people (I think) who follow Judaism. What will they be called if not Jews?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: rextilleon
So basically Israel is home for the Jews? What about non-Jews?

Hey, better to be called a troll then to be cursed out--(your usual course of response)----
I'm just quoting you--dont kill the messenger. You claim to be a Jew but you dont have the faintest idea of what Judaism is or is not, what Israel is or is not---Me thinks you need to read!

lol
for everyone who thinks rextilleon is of a sound mind, the above should be an eye-opener. I am not a Jew. I call retards what they are. I do not curse out you troll.
I asked a question regarding what Max said. Do you know what question marks are? They look like this -> "?"

BTW to respond to your question... Non-jews currently residing in Israel are equal citzens. But the idea behind Israel is that Jews are a nation of people, who are dispersed all over the world. Imagine for example if Pakistan was destroyed... and then refounded... your first responsibility would be getting your pakistani citzens back. Israel sees jewish immigration as repatriating rather than simply immigrating.

-Max

Thanks. I have objections about your statement regarding non-jews being equal citizens in Israel, but lets leave that. I dont know about you, but I think its just wrong to claim a land as being one's own by birthright or on the basis of it being one's own because once upon a time, it was. And that too based on religious grounds - Israel being the land of the Jewish people - not a race, but the followers of the religion Judaism. No one would object if the land was still uninhabited, but displacing the current inhabitants to claim the land as one's own is just not right. Would you not have a problem if a Muslim tomorrow claimed that since Adam was bestowed Earth by God was a Muslim (according to their belief), the whole of Earth is Muslim land and everyone else should go jump into the ocean?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Sultan

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ofcourse Islam doesnt claim that the Quran was written by God's HAND directly, but it IS the word of God so believe the Muslims. This doesnt answer my question though. Who are the people you named? Saints? Were they Jews or Christians? Are they attributed with starting the religion of Christianity? If Jews believed in Jesus as being God and had to crucify him, why Christianity at all?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christians likewise claim that their gospels are the word of God. The people named above are both Jews and Christians. Supposedly, they're Apostles (and thus also saints), but as with the Qu'ran, no one knows who actually wrote the Gospels down. All we have is tradition in either case.

Did you not say "the books themselves don't make a claim as to their authorship and do not offer a first person point of view. We don't know who wrote them."? I believe the Bible has some 26000 different versions. How is that possible? You didnt respond to my question: "Are they attributed with starting the religion of Christianity? If Jews believed in Jesus as being God and had to crucify him, why Christianity at all?".

I'm not Christian or Jewish, so I'm not the right person to answer your last question. As for your penultimate question, Christians claim that Jesus founded the religion of Christianity. However, I'd recommend reading a modern book like Lost Christianities to see all the various Christianities that existed in the first couple of centuries after his death, before accepting their view.

Bible versions differ in several ways:
1. The books that are included. Remember that the Qu'ran is one book. The Bible is a collection
of books, some of which are considered the word of God, but others of which are merely
inspired.
2. The orignal manuscripts used to make the translation. No one has the first copy of any book
of the Bible any more than anyone has the very first written version of every one of Mohammed's
sayings. Also, none of the earliest manuscripts of any of the books of the Bible is complete, and
the various early manuscripts are not identical.
3. Translation. Few modern Christians can read Greek, so many translations exist. As there is
no 1:1 correspondence between Greek and English, many translations exist within a single
language too, even if the two groups chose the same set of early manuscripts, which rarely
happens.

As regards to the Quran, it was voiced by Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions memorized those words by heart, wrote it down, and the compilation was completed by Caliph Osman. Since then, the words of Quran have been preserved by thousands, if not millions of Muslims who have memorized it. Tradition on the other hand is referred to as Sunnah and Hadith (the practices and words of Muhammad). They are the second source of Islamic law. They are definitely traditions, while the Quran is not.

We're using different meanings of the word tradition. The tradition I'm referring to is that the angel Gabriel brought the words of God to Mohammed who gave them to his followers, who wrote it down. I'm not Muslim either, so I don't believe in any miracles there either.

No, it's not a new meaning of the word. It's both the traditional meaning of the word and the one we find today on dictionary.com:

1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.

Even the primary usage of the word jew isn't limited solely to religion.

So being a Jew does not mean you are a follower of Judaism?

Correct.

I know there are conformist Muslims and non-conformists, but being Muslim means one who has descended from the follower of Islam. Would not being a Jew imply the same, whether you are a conformist Jew or a non-conformist? There are non-semitic people (I think) who follow Judaism. What will they be called if not Jews?

Words in English have multiple meanings. Even the word English itself refers to both a language and to an ethic group who originated that language. Jew means both a follower of Judaism and a member of the Jewish ethnic group. I don't see why this is such a problem for you.

I have objections about your statement regarding non-jews being equal citizens in Israel, but lets leave that. I dont know about you, but I think its just wrong to claim a land as being one's own by birthright or on the basis of it being one's own because once upon a time, it was.

Agreed. If we all claimed the land where our ancestors lived thousands of years ago, there would be a huge amount of overlap, so even if there was a moral validity to those claims, they'd be impossible to satisfy.

 

[Sultan]

Christians claim that Jesus founded the religion of Christianity.

And the Jews claim?

Words in English have multiple meanings. Even the word English itself refers to both a language and to an ethic group who originated that language. Jew means both a follower of Judaism and a member of the Jewish ethnic group. I don't see why this is such a problem for you.

Because I cannot understand what kind of ethnicity would Jews who define themselves as ethnic Jews have. I understand ethnicity as being a group of people from a similar geographical area, speaking the same tongue, having similar physical features and/or having a common cultural heritage.

Is it that those who claim Jewish ethnicity do so based on their ability to speak Hebrew? Even Hebrew is often interchangeable with the word Jew.

I dont believe any other definition of ethnicity one can apply. There wasnt a group of Jews from any particular area in the recent past, nor did disparate Jews have a common culture, nor would they have the same physical features. Am I wrong?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Christians claim that Jesus founded the religion of Christianity.

And the Jews claim?

I'm not sure whether there is an official Jewish position on Jesus.

Words in English have multiple meanings. Even the word English itself refers to both a language and to an ethic group who originated that language. Jew means both a follower of Judaism and a member of the Jewish ethnic group. I don't see why this is such a problem for you.

Because I cannot understand what kind of ethnicity would Jews who define themselves as ethnic Jews have. I understand ethnicity as being a group of people from a similar geographical area, speaking the same tongue, having similar physical features and/or having a common cultural heritage.

Is it that those who claim Jewish ethnicity do so based on their ability to speak Hebrew? Even Hebrew is often interchangeable with the word Jew.

I dont believe any other definition of ethnicity one can apply. There wasnt a group of Jews from any particular area in the recent past, nor did disparate Jews have a common culture, nor would they have the same physical features. Am I wrong?

You are wrong, because the Jews of the Diaspora retained their language, culture, and physical features, including ones that we've analyzed genetically (blood type distributions of European Jews are different from those of the Europeans they lived among, and certain genetic disorders like Tay Sachs occur with dramatically higher frequency in the Jewish population, much like sickle cell anemia and the black population in the US.)

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: rextilleon
So basically Israel is home for the Jews? What about non-Jews?

Hey, better to be called a troll then to be cursed out--(your usual course of response)----
I'm just quoting you--dont kill the messenger. You claim to be a Jew but you dont have the faintest idea of what Judaism is or is not, what Israel is or is not---Me thinks you need to read!

lol
for everyone who thinks rextilleon is of a sound mind, the above should be an eye-opener. I am not a Jew. I call retards what they are. I do not curse out you troll.
I asked a question regarding what Max said. Do you know what question marks are? They look like this -> "?"

BTW to respond to your question... Non-jews currently residing in Israel are equal citzens. But the idea behind Israel is that Jews are a nation of people, who are dispersed all over the world. Imagine for example if Pakistan was destroyed... and then refounded... your first responsibility would be getting your pakistani citzens back. Israel sees jewish immigration as repatriating rather than simply immigrating.

-Max

Thanks. I have objections about your statement regarding non-jews being equal citizens in Israel, but lets leave that. I dont know about you, but I think its just wrong to claim a land as being one's own by birthright or on the basis of it being one's own because once upon a time, it was. And that too based on religious grounds - Israel being the land of the Jewish people - not a race, but the followers of the religion Judaism. No one would object if the land was still uninhabited, but displacing the current inhabitants to claim the land as one's own is just not right. Would you not have a problem if a Muslim tomorrow claimed that since Adam was bestowed Earth by God was a Muslim (according to their belief), the whole of Earth is Muslim land and everyone else should go jump into the ocean?

I understand your objections, but understand that when the idea of Zionism began in the 1800s Jews were not accepted as equal citzens throughout most of the world. The idea was for Jews to found a nation for themselves in order to obtain rights for themselves. The Palestine territory (READ: Not country) was the best choice because of the historical connection, AND because of the extremely low existing population there at the time. By 1860 the total population of Palestine was 411,000, (according to a palestinian source..

The current state of affairs is not the result of one population moving in to displace another, but the result of a long standing civil war between two nationalities in the same land. But this is a whole other debate....

Because I cannot understand what kind of ethnicity would Jews who define themselves as ethnic Jews have. I understand ethnicity as being a group of people from a similar geographical area, speaking the same tongue, having similar physical features and/or having a common cultural heritage.

Is it that those who claim Jewish ethnicity do so based on their ability to speak Hebrew? Even Hebrew is often interchangeable with the word Jew.

I dont believe any other definition of ethnicity one can apply. There wasnt a group of Jews from any particular area in the recent past, nor did disparate Jews have a common culture, nor would they have the same physical features. Am I wrong?

Well the definition of a Jew TECHNICALLY is found within Judaism itself, and it's meaning is spiritual. To be a jew, means to posess the Jewish soul, which is basically a second soul, whose purpose is to purify/heal the world. According to the Tanach the soul is passed from mother to son, but Ger Tzedeks(converts) also possess it. It therefore transcends racial boundaries. Yes I know this is incredibly vague... I mean how do you know if someone posseses the Jewish soul or not?.. Big questions like if a son of a jewish mother practices Catholicism, does he still possess the jewish soul?... I don't know that there is an answer to that.

-Max

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: theblooms

Originally posted by: Klixxer
theblooms seems to have lost his grip after his first post and now he's only rambling, thank you for your advice, i will take it.

Take care.

Perfect. I make arguments and back them up with hard evidence, therefore I have lost my grip, or I am way out there. I guess I'm out there because I want the USA to return to its roots like the Founding Fathers had set up.

Now THERES a way to respond to an argument, call the other person a name. I hear it all the time on the radio, when people call Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly names, and now it has happend to me. I feel special!

And to Sultan, I will respect your request to end the argument. At least you never called me names.

Michael

I never called you a name... but you are a Conservative parrot... completely closed minded, and firmly purchased into the Libertarian = good everyone else = evil. Arguing with you is like arguing with Bin Laden... absolutely unswayable. You believe Socialism is a great evil, when in reality it is simply a different economic system... one which millions of europeans are quite happy with. As an american... I prefer the American system, I think in my case it allows for a better life. This does not make the Netherlands some kind of Stalinist state... it's a matter of preference and not good and evil.

Having said that... I do agree in part with your assessment of militant Islam, and terrorism. The only solution is freedom in the middle east. But like rextilleon said... we're looking at a hundred year struggle, and it remains to see if the soft western world has the nutz to go through with it.

Try to step outside your good and evil box, and use critical thinking skills.

-Max

Whats this about "militant" Islam? There's no such thing. There are militants, and there is Islam. Why do you insist on labelling a religion with a connotation of violence? Those who use the name of religion to commit acts of violence are perverts, call them that. Middle East has plenty of freedom, and if there's more needed, let the Middle Eastern people speak up. Why do we Americans have such a motivation to "free" others? Do you (meaning Americans who hold the same mindset) have a superiority complex or something?

you deny the militancy of islam?

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/1100.htm

much more in the book "end of faith" by sam harris.

its funny how reasonable people suddenly lose all ability to reason when it comes to religion. one must pretend that all religions are indeed equal, in the face of all evidence. it is a politically correct dogma. so there are no religions more prone to militancy, because that would be politically incorrect

Yes, I deny the "militancy" of Islam. Your link is to an active Christian ministry run by an unknown person. You post this link of some Christian activist who degrade another religion by associating violence with the religion's teaching and there are some on this board who claim hatred is being preached in Masjids around the world. Come on man, if what this website says is not seeding your mind of hatred against Muslims, you're lying to yourself.

the book end of faith which goes into far more detail on the same thing is written by a stanford philosophy grad....

seeding with hatred? or are you simply blind with faith to all reasoned examination. its silly as just "pretending" that all types of government are the same.






ah well... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13956
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10581

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: theblooms

Originally posted by: Klixxer
theblooms seems to have lost his grip after his first post and now he's only rambling, thank you for your advice, i will take it.

Take care.

Perfect. I make arguments and back them up with hard evidence, therefore I have lost my grip, or I am way out there. I guess I'm out there because I want the USA to return to its roots like the Founding Fathers had set up.

Now THERES a way to respond to an argument, call the other person a name. I hear it all the time on the radio, when people call Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly names, and now it has happend to me. I feel special!

And to Sultan, I will respect your request to end the argument. At least you never called me names.

Michael

I never called you a name... but you are a Conservative parrot... completely closed minded, and firmly purchased into the Libertarian = good everyone else = evil. Arguing with you is like arguing with Bin Laden... absolutely unswayable. You believe Socialism is a great evil, when in reality it is simply a different economic system... one which millions of europeans are quite happy with. As an american... I prefer the American system, I think in my case it allows for a better life. This does not make the Netherlands some kind of Stalinist state... it's a matter of preference and not good and evil.

Having said that... I do agree in part with your assessment of militant Islam, and terrorism. The only solution is freedom in the middle east. But like rextilleon said... we're looking at a hundred year struggle, and it remains to see if the soft western world has the nutz to go through with it.

Try to step outside your good and evil box, and use critical thinking skills.

-Max

Whats this about "militant" Islam? There's no such thing. There are militants, and there is Islam. Why do you insist on labelling a religion with a connotation of violence? Those who use the name of religion to commit acts of violence are perverts, call them that. Middle East has plenty of freedom, and if there's more needed, let the Middle Eastern people speak up. Why do we Americans have such a motivation to "free" others? Do you (meaning Americans who hold the same mindset) have a superiority complex or something?

you deny the militancy of islam?

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/1100.htm

much more in the book "end of faith" by sam harris.

its funny how reasonable people suddenly lose all ability to reason when it comes to religion. one must pretend that all religions are indeed equal, in the face of all evidence. it is a politically correct dogma. so there are no religions more prone to militancy, because that would be politically incorrect

Yes, I deny the "militancy" of Islam. Your link is to an active Christian ministry run by an unknown person. You post this link of some Christian activist who degrade another religion by associating violence with the religion's teaching and there are some on this board who claim hatred is being preached in Masjids around the world. Come on man, if what this website says is not seeding your mind of hatred against Muslims, you're lying to yourself.

the book end of faith which goes into far more detail on the same thing is written by a stanford philosophy grad....

seeding with hatred? or are you simply blind with faith to all reasoned examination. its silly as just "pretending" that all types of government are the same.






ah well... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13956
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10581

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

I dont know what sort of credibility you are looking for in a Stanford philosophy grad.

Reasoned examinations do not associate violence with any religion.

Jihadwatch is run by one of the contributing authors of Frontpagemag. Do you have all these websites in your favorites or something? Let me know, I can add to your collection of anti-Islamic websites.