Islam Means Peace?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:35 am

waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:36 am
Note this big critical difference;

Image

The major evil acts of the above are driven directly by the evil ethos within the Quran and intrinsic to Islam.

There are Christians who commit evil and violent acts but they are not inspired by the words of Jesus and the God of Christianity as represented in the NT.
It is the same with all other religions [Judaism?? = contentious] which do not inspire their believers to commit evil and violent acts against non-believers as a divine duty in the name of a God.

Still no significant difference?
This is plainly wrong. Throughout history Christians have always been committing atrocities inspired by teaching of the Bible, including the NT. The thing is: modern Christians have mostly adopted mild interpretation of their holy book, while many Muslims are still indoctrinated by more extreme interpretation of the Quran. The holy books of both religions can be interpreted in great variety of ways. This shapes the difference between extremism and the rest.
P.S: Historically Christians had acted more violently than Muslims. The Crusaders committed genocide at Jerusalem while the Muslims didn't retaliate when they later recaptured it.
I have argued;
A Christian or a Muslim is a person who has entered into a personal contract [covenant] with their God to comply with the words of God with a promise of eternal life in heaven.
The terms of the contract are stipulated within the authorized texts of the specific religions, i.e. Gospel [OT, Acts, Epistles as supporting] and Quran respectively.

I have given the details re Who is a Christian-proper here;
Who is a Christian-proper?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27654&p=428918&hil ... an#p428918

The above process for a Christian is the same for a Muslim.

For the Christian-proper, in the contractual terms he has to comply with, as in the Gospel, an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. "love all - even enemies."
If a "Christian" had killed or committed atrocities, meant he was not acting as Christian per se because a Christian by definition has to comply with the overriding pacifist maxim "love all -even enemies."

In this case, Christianity per se has wisely established an "injunction" to ensure it is absolved from all evil and violent acts committed by its followers who acted on their own free will as driven by the evil propensity within their human nature.

A 'Christian' may have killed for the greater good as in the Crusades or other reasons, but such killing is not commanded by Christianity per se.
In this case, the 'Christian' killed by his own free will via his human nature and not by any command of Christianity. As such, the Christian will have to face God on Judgment Day for his sins, which can be forgiven or will be punished accordingly by God.

Note the element of a personal contract with God to comply with the contractual terms as in the authorized texts from God, i.e. Gospel is critical. This is very principled and objective.

Similarly for a Muslim, he would have entered into a personal contract [covenant] with Allah to comply with the contracted terms, i.e. the 6236 verses of the Quran.
The Quran, i.e. the words of Allah command and exhort Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims upon threats with vague definitions [even cartoons]. (evidence available).

Yes, a holy book may be interpreted in various way by various people. But in the case of the evil and violent laden verses against non-Muslims in the Quran, they are very clear and direct. The whole context [ethos] of evil and violent directed at non-Muslims is supported by 54% or 3400++ verses out of 6236 verses (evidence available).

When a significant SOME Muslims commit atrocities, they are following the commands of Allah per their contractual obligations of the religion.
Therefore when 'SOME' Muslims commit atrocities it has a direct and everything to do with Islam.

PS. Historically, Muslims has killed as a religious duty more than "Christians" had killed on their own free will [nothing to do with Christianity].
Throughout the 1400+ years of Islam, Muslims compelled by religious duty had killed more than 200 million non-Muslims in various parts of the world and this is still happening at present and will be in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... by_Muslims

I bet you don't have any effective counter to the above.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:42 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:15 pm
waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:00 am
Throughout history Christians have always been committing atrocities inspired by teaching of the Bible, including the NT.
Both statistically and theologically untrue. Sorry. It just is.

Religious wars, in total, have killed about 8% of all the war dead. Of those, half (4%) have been killed by wars generated in the name of the "Religion of Peace," Islam. Of the remaining 4%, all other religions are combined...Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Catholicism, etc. So "religion," if it is a contributor to war, is, by any account, a small cause not a big one -- even with Islam included.

However, some groups, like the Anabaptists, Mennonites and Quakers, never caused even one war ever. :shock: So for them, the claim is just downright slanderous.
The holy books of both religions can be interpreted in great variety of ways.

"Interpreted"? No, just ignored or taken seriously. There isn't actually much dispute about what the books say, at least on the grand scale. What's much more varied is how much people determine to obey them.
P.S: Historically Christians had acted more violently than Muslims.
Actually, you couldn't be more factually wrong, even if you imagined that "Catholic" and "Christian" were synonyms.

We should note that the Crusades themselves were political events using a religious banner, not religious events using a political one, by any fair account. But let's pretend that's not true. Let's pretend it's all the same soft soap.

While we don't know how many people the Catholic Crusades killed, the wildest and most anti-Catholic estimates by Atheist apologists never exceed single-digit millions...that is, from 1 to 9 million at the most extreme, including all dead on any side by any cause whatever, including disaster, disease and starvation. In contrast, by charitable estimate, the Muslim Crusades which began under Mohammed himself extended over a millennium and a half enslaved and killed somewhere around 270 million.
Without relying on the basis of a personal contract with God to comply with the contracted terms in the holy books, your arguments are full of holes and cannot produce a checkmate conclusion.

Your points above are very flimsy.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:42 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:15 pm

Both statistically and theologically untrue. Sorry. It just is.

Religious wars, in total, have killed about 8% of all the war dead. Of those, half (4%) have been killed by wars generated in the name of the "Religion of Peace," Islam. Of the remaining 4%, all other religions are combined...Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Catholicism, etc. So "religion," if it is a contributor to war, is, by any account, a small cause not a big one -- even with Islam included.

However, some groups, like the Anabaptists, Mennonites and Quakers, never caused even one war ever. :shock: So for them, the claim is just downright slanderous.


"Interpreted"? No, just ignored or taken seriously. There isn't actually much dispute about what the books say, at least on the grand scale. What's much more varied is how much people determine to obey them.


Actually, you couldn't be more factually wrong, even if you imagined that "Catholic" and "Christian" were synonyms.

We should note that the Crusades themselves were political events using a religious banner, not religious events using a political one, by any fair account. But let's pretend that's not true. Let's pretend it's all the same soft soap.

While we don't know how many people the Catholic Crusades killed, the wildest and most anti-Catholic estimates by Atheist apologists never exceed single-digit millions...that is, from 1 to 9 million at the most extreme, including all dead on any side by any cause whatever, including disaster, disease and starvation. In contrast, by charitable estimate, the Muslim Crusades which began under Mohammed himself extended over a millennium and a half enslaved and killed somewhere around 270 million.
Without relying on the basis of a personal contract with God to comply with the contracted terms in the holy books, your arguments are full of holes and cannot produce a checkmate conclusion.
You've failed to notice that NONE of my arguments above relies AT ALL on anything about or from holy books. Your critical comment is not just weak, therefore, it's dead wrong, and observably so.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:38 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:42 am
Without relying on the basis of a personal contract with God to comply with the contracted terms in the holy books, your arguments are full of holes and cannot produce a checkmate conclusion.
You've failed to notice that NONE of my arguments above relies AT ALL on anything about or from holy books. Your critical comment is not just weak, therefore, it's dead wrong, and observably so.
The ultimate authority of theistic religions is grounded on the respective holy book.
You mean the authority of any of the mainstream religions are based on personal opinions without reference to any holy book?
I noted you did not rely on the holy book as a basis for the contracted terms re a personal contract with God, thus it is a very weak argument.

If the overriding pacifist maxim, 'love all - even enemies' is not regarded as a contractual terms in a personal contract with God, then it mean there is nothing to stop/debar Christians from relying on the terrible loads of evil and laden element in the OT and some in the NT to commit their terrible evil and violent acts.
In this case, the Christian God is not a wise God who did not command Christians to be serious with his commands.

The pacifist maxim, 'love all - even enemies' has to be overriding because an omni-moral god [IF exists] would not contradict itself with permission for Christians to hate and kill enemies.

Age
Posts: 3610
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Age » Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:17 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:42 am
Without relying on the basis of a personal contract with God to comply with the contracted terms in the holy books, your arguments are full of holes and cannot produce a checkmate conclusion.
You've failed to notice that NONE of my arguments above relies AT ALL on anything about or from holy books. Your critical comment is not just weak, therefore, it's dead wrong, and observably so.
The ultimate authority of theistic religions is grounded on the respective holy book.
You mean the authority of any of the mainstream religions are based on personal opinions without reference to any holy book?
I noted you did not rely on the holy book as a basis for the contracted terms re a personal contract with God, thus it is a very weak argument.

If the overriding pacifist maxim, 'love all - even enemies' is not regarded as a contractual terms in a personal contract with God, then it mean there is nothing to stop/debar Christians from relying on the terrible loads of evil and laden element in the OT and some in the NT to commit their terrible evil and violent acts.
In this case, the Christian God is not a wise God who did not command Christians to be serious with his commands.

The pacifist maxim, 'love all - even enemies' has to be overriding because an omni-moral god [IF exists] would not contradict itself with permission for Christians to hate and kill enemies.
But it is permissible in holy texts to kill enemies. This is done through, and from, love. There is absolutely NO contradiction in 'loving all' and 'killing enemies'.

'you', "veritas aequitas", keep missing the mark. This is because you do not yet fully understand what 'killing' means in holy text. But do not feel alone. None of 'you', human beings, have yet worked this out either.

waxberry4@gmail.com
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:56 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by waxberry4@gmail.com » Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 3:15 pm
waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:00 am
Throughout history Christians have always been committing atrocities inspired by teaching of the Bible, including the NT.
Both statistically and theologically untrue. Sorry. It just is.

Religious wars, in total, have killed about 8% of all the war dead. Of those, half (4%) have been killed by wars generated in the name of the "Religion of Peace," Islam. Of the remaining 4%, all other religions are combined...Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Catholicism, etc. So "religion," if it is a contributor to war, is, by any account, a small cause not a big one -- even with Islam included.

However, some groups, like the Anabaptists, Mennonites and Quakers, never caused even one war ever. :shock: So for them, the claim is just downright slanderous.
The holy books of both religions can be interpreted in great variety of ways.

"Interpreted"? No, just ignored or taken seriously. There isn't actually much dispute about what the books say, at least on the grand scale. What's much more varied is how much people determine to obey them.
P.S: Historically Christians had acted more violently than Muslims.
Actually, you couldn't be more factually wrong, even if you imagined that "Catholic" and "Christian" were synonyms.

We should note that the Crusades themselves were political events using a religious banner, not religious events using a political one, by any fair account. But let's pretend that's not true. Let's pretend it's all the same soft soap.

While we don't know how many people the Catholic Crusades killed, the wildest and most anti-Catholic estimates by Atheist apologists never exceed single-digit millions...that is, from 1 to 9 million at the most extreme, including all dead on any side by any cause whatever, including disaster, disease and starvation. In contrast, by charitable estimate, the Muslim Crusades which began under Mohammed himself extended over a millennium and a half enslaved and killed somewhere around 270 million.
I agree that my conclusion may be hasty and statistically inaccurate. But two things you said are obviously wrong. First, no reasonable Christian will deny the fact that their holy book is subject to interpretations. If interpretation is unnecessary they won't have to listen to pastors, and there would not be thousands of denominations around the globe who have disagreements about the Bible from cover to cover. Second, it makes no sense to believe that religious warriors who sacrifice their lives for their religious convictions knowingly disobey their doctrines, the very thing they die for. Protestants naturally attempt to attribute Crusaders to Catholicism and politics, but they cannot offer a reasonable explanation of what these people were fighting for, if they were not devoted Christians.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:06 am

waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:47 am
..
Second, it makes no sense to believe that religious warriors who sacrifice their lives for their religious convictions knowingly disobey their doctrines, the very thing they die for.
That is true.
The religious would not dare to go against the words of God, otherwise they could be sent to hell or punished.
A Christian who is well versed with the Gospel would definitely have noted the ethos of love all and even enemies as God's overriding pacifist maxim. Thus as a Christian they are debar from hating and killing non-Christians and others.

However, those 'SOME' Muslims who killed non-Muslims would have done so with the sincere belief it was Allah's command that exhort them to kill as a religious duty to warrant greater rewards as promised in the holy text, i.e. Quran
Protestants naturally attempt to attribute Crusaders to Catholicism and politics, but they cannot offer a reasonable explanation of what these people were fighting for, if they were not devoted Christians.
The Crusaders as Christian should have known God prohibit hating the enemies and thus killing their enemies.
As noted the Crusader hesitated for a long time before retaliating against the Muslims, presumably deliberating on whether to break the terms of the contract, i.e. the overriding prohibition to hate then kill their enemies.

However the actual situation then was turning worse and worse with their hesitation and the Crusaders took upon their own free will and risk breaking their personal covenant for the greater good with the hope that God will forgive them for their sins.

In any case, God's commands and maxims are ideals. God [if exists] would not expect His fallible humans to be perfect like Him or Jesus.
Any fallible human who sins without evil and malicious intents would likely be forgiven by an omniscient God.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:42 am
Without relying on the basis of a personal contract with God to comply with the contracted terms in the holy books, your arguments are full of holes and cannot produce a checkmate conclusion.
You've failed to notice that NONE of my arguments above relies AT ALL on anything about or from holy books. Your critical comment is not just weak, therefore, it's dead wrong, and observably so.
The ultimate authority of theistic religions is grounded on the respective holy book.
However, the arguments I gave you in my message did not rely on that at all. They were just statistics and facts that anybody could find out.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:26 pm

waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:47 am
While we don't know how many people the Catholic Crusades killed, the wildest and most anti-Catholic estimates by Atheist apologists never exceed single-digit millions...that is, from 1 to 9 million at the most extreme, including all dead on any side by any cause whatever, including disaster, disease and starvation. In contrast, by charitable estimate, the Muslim Crusades which began under Mohammed himself extended over a millennium and a half enslaved and killed somewhere around 270 million.
I agree that my conclusion may be hasty and statistically inaccurate.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what motivated it, then. Why would someone who's obviously fairly smart decide to jump suddenly to such a conclusion, absent the evidence for it?
But two things you said are obviously wrong. First, no reasonable Christian will deny the fact that their holy book is subject to interpretations. If interpretation is unnecessary they won't have to listen to pastors, and there would not be thousands of denominations around the globe who have disagreements about the Bible from cover to cover.

"Subject to interpretations" is an interesting phrase, because it describes every text ever written. It's not just "holy books" that have to deal with that, but everything -- including the present message.

But secondly, "interpretation" isn't the same as "opinion." There are good and bad interpretations, depending on the level of integrity with which the text is treated; and there is a range limitation in how widely "interpretations" can be, before they become distortions or misrepresentations of text. The area of study of this is called "exegesis," and it's actually a rather detailed, careful and precise area. I can detail how it works in reference to various texts, if that turns out to interest you.
Second, it makes no sense to believe that religious warriors who sacrifice their lives for their religious convictions knowingly disobey their doctrines, the very thing they die for.
Oh, I disagree. A thing doesn't become true just because somebody decides to die for it. Their death may signify their sincerity -- but it does not prove their correctness. If a man were to read, "Love your enemies, and do good to them that hate you," and then go out as a warrior to harm enemies, then it isn't hard for you and me both to see what's the problem with the guy. However, in the case of Islam, we don't have that problem. The text itself, and the Haddiths and conservative imams as well, insist that that is the correct reading of their text.
Protestants naturally attempt to attribute Crusaders to Catholicism
Of course. They were Catholic crusades, sanctioned by the pope and obligatory only to Catholics. To whom else would one attribute them? The Mennonnites? The Hindus?
they cannot offer a reasonable explanation of what these people were fighting for, if they were not devoted Christians.
Actually, you're wrong again.

Historians of the period, the secular ones, can tell you exactly what it was all about. The First Crusade, which was also the most overtly Catholic of them, began in response to an entirely secular plea for military relief by the very desperate emperor of Byzantium against the Islamic threat. That's a military motive, not a religious one. The Jerusalem Crusade was probably the most religious part of the whole operation. In the remaining nine phases of the Crusades, it was warlords not popes and the Catholic Church generally that were running the show. What you have in the Crusades is a political and military operation flying a religious flag...nothing more. But not being a Catholic, I really don't feel I ought to make a further answer on their behalf. I do not agree that what they did was justifiable from Scripture...and actually, neither do they, nowadays. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... -1204.html

Here's a good test to see what was a "religious" war and what was not. Ask yourself, "If the religion in question had not existed, would there still have been a main motive for the war?" If the war would have stopped instantly, then you have a genuinely "religious" war. If it would have continued for land, pride, resources, nationhood, racism, ethnicity, and so on, then in what sense can we call the war "religious"? It's most plausible that the Crusades would have happened so long as Byzantine Empire or Europe itself was threatened by the Muslims. So we might say it was "religious" on the Islamic side, but political on the European side.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:38 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:17 am

You've failed to notice that NONE of my arguments above relies AT ALL on anything about or from holy books. Your critical comment is not just weak, therefore, it's dead wrong, and observably so.
The ultimate authority of theistic religions is grounded on the respective holy book.
However, the arguments I gave you in my message did not rely on that at all. They were just statistics and facts that anybody could find out.
You have changed the subject from the original point;
waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:00 am
Throughout history Christians have always been committing atrocities inspired by teaching of the Bible, including the NT.
There is no specific mentioned of 'religious' wars but rather as inspired by the Bible, including the NT.

The direct answer to the above is 'NO!!!'
The contractual terms in the Gospel [not OT, Acts, Espistles] the Christians contracted with God of Christianity, has an overriding pacifist maxim 'love all -even enemies.'
Therefore Christianity did not inspire Christians to commit atrocities as commanded by the teachings of Christianity.

Where did you get 'killing of religious wars is only 8%?'
Islam alone is attributed with more than 200 millions non-Muslims killed in India throughout its 1000 years of control. Note it is 1,000 years.
In this case % is not the critical factor but the quantum involved and the potential it will be repeated in the future based on the past and present trend.

As to the defense by Christians against accusations that Christianity itself is evil and violent in inspiring Christians to kill, the counter checkmate position is to bring in the 'queen' i.e. the personal divine contract [covenant] a Christian has 'signed up' with God via the offer in John 3:16.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:58 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:38 am

The ultimate authority of theistic religions is grounded on the respective holy book.
However, the arguments I gave you in my message did not rely on that at all. They were just statistics and facts that anybody could find out.
You have changed the subject from the original point;
No. I just didn't agree with your misdirection. I don't need to refer to Christian sources. Secular sources say exactly the same things. But most people just don't know what the real statistics are. I'm guessing you're among those who didn't know it, too.
Where did you get 'killing of religious wars is only 8%?'
The (very secular) three-volume "Encyclopaedia of War."

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2778
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:13 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:48 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:53 pm

However, the arguments I gave you in my message did not rely on that at all. They were just statistics and facts that anybody could find out.
You have changed the subject from the original point;
No. I just didn't agree with your misdirection. I don't need to refer to Christian sources. Secular sources say exactly the same things. But most people just don't know what the real statistics are. I'm guessing you're among those who didn't know it, too.
Where did you get 'killing of religious wars is only 8%?'
The (very secular) three-volume "Encyclopaedia of War."
You still cannot see you have deliberately and rhetorically changed and deflect the subject from atrocities [by any means, massacres] to specificaly religious-wars. Note the original point again.
waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:00 am
Throughout history Christians have always been committing atrocities inspired by teaching of the Bible, including the NT.
There is no mentioned of 'religious wars'.

It is like the three-volume "Encyclopaedia of War" will have their basis in arriving at 8%. Their basis may be questionable.
As I had stated the 8% is not the critical point but the total quantum of people killed in relation to religions specifically is what counts with this point contented.

It is claimed the quantum of non-Muslims killed in Islam's 1000 controlled of India was more than 200 million and more when we include non-Muslims killed throught Islam's 1400 years of history.
So the % is not important but the total quantum is critical.

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 767
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Sculptor » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:25 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:13 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:58 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:48 am

You have changed the subject from the original point;
No. I just didn't agree with your misdirection. I don't need to refer to Christian sources. Secular sources say exactly the same things. But most people just don't know what the real statistics are. I'm guessing you're among those who didn't know it, too.
Where did you get 'killing of religious wars is only 8%?'
The (very secular) three-volume "Encyclopaedia of War."
You still cannot see you have deliberately and rhetorically changed and deflect the subject from atrocities [by any means, massacres] to specificaly religious-wars. Note the original point again.
waxberry4@gmail.com wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:00 am
Throughout history Christians have always been committing atrocities inspired by teaching of the Bible, including the NT.
There is no mentioned of 'religious wars'.
ROLF.
All wars were religious.
Right through the OT, to WW1, and then some

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:38 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:13 am
You still cannot see you have deliberately and rhetorically changed and deflect the subject from atrocities [by any means, massacres] to specificaly religious-wars.
Hogwash.

"Atrocities" is a very vague term. But if you prefer to pretend "massacres" is better, you'll find that even more religious groups have not only not precipitated any wars, but their being involved in "massacres" or other "attrocities" is even less common. You're squirming, but you're not helping your case. The facts are all against you on this one.

Now, I know it's easy to be fooled by the old "religion causes wars" meme, because so many people stupidly recite it. But a prejudice is not less a prejudice if lots of people are fooled by it. Even a superficial amount of thinking proves it wrong, as you'll see below.
Their basis may be questionable.
Well, instead of imagining that, and saying "may," go and prove them wrong. They give you the lists of wars, and the demographic count. Look it up, if you think you can find differently.

But anyone who has even a basic knowledge of war, knows they're right.

You should already know that more people were killed in the wars of the 20th Century -- WW1 and 2, the Cold War, Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, the Cuban, Russian and Chinese revolutions, etc. -- than in all previous history combined. That's an open fact. So if you know even that basic fact, you know that there's no way "religion" can be pegged as a majority cause of war. Then take out all the wars fought for economic, territorial, racial, cultural, political, egocentric, resource and power reasons, and whatever you have left is vanishingly small, no matter what causes are left in it...and somewhere in that small fraction is "religion." 8% is just about right. (It's actually slightly less, around 7.8%, but I rounded up in order to be generous to the delusion, and non-Islamic wars account for around 3.23%, but I rounded up again and said 1/2, just to be generous again.)

So just use common sense and very basic common knowledge, It will tell you, if nothing else does. Something very close to the Encyclopedia of War's tally HAS to be right.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6460
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Islam Means Peace?

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:48 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:25 pm
All wars were religious.
Really?

Nobody ever fought for any reason but religion? WW1, 2, The Vietnam War, the American, French, Cuban, Russian and Chinese Revolutions? The American Civil War, The Cambodia, Korea, the Cold War, the Punic Wars, The Opium War, The War of the Roses, The Battle of Blenheim, Caesar's Gallic Wars, the Napoleonic Wars...all fought primarily for religious reasons? Nobody ever fought for territory, money, resources, tribe, culture, language, pride, conquest, fear...

Speak on, great sage. Your knowledge and wisdom astonish.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nothing and 7 guests