I am an Islamophobe.

[Gäiten]

No such statistics exists for any group. Why are you asking for Christians? Did you use such statistics for Muslims? Are you gonna argue Christians do it less? Or are you gonna argue that Christian don't do it anymore?

There is an excellent Report: Unsettled Belonging: Britain's Muslim Communities done by Policy Research (https://policyexchange.org.uk/public...m-communities/)
Here are some statistics in.
You say there is no difference between Christian and Muslim violence today, so I would like to see statistics as those above.
However, for Christians there are no such statistics because Christianity is not a problematic (you can say aggressive) Religion anymore as Islam is.

What argument that I used is part of the Islamophobe Propaganda?

You deny that Islam does have a massive Problem with violence.
If certain suras are quoted you only say this is not correct because they are quoted wrongly or they describe historic Events who can not be used today anymore.
Same cherrypicking and denying do the appeasers, they deny to recognize that there is a Problem.

But other Muslims have been using these suras in the context to murder and they have been justified by high members of Islamic clergy.

Any critique on Islam is simply hidden Islamophobie (because there is nothing you can criticize on Islam, so you can only be an Islamophope aka rascist).
The known Muslim victimhood Show.

[basics]

Just for the interested, Christianity came about as a consequence of the Jewish Scriptures which were thousands of years in advance of Islam and hundreds ahead of Islam. It is built on the truth written by the prophets that Jesus Christ would come into the world as a man yet still be God. The consequence of that truth turned all the lands around the Middle East to being Christian, Jewish and Pagan Arab. They lived in relative safety and peace until Mohammed started his conquests so there is no disputing that. Yes, the Jews did rebel against Rome but these rebellions didn't last long. There did come a time when the Roman Catholic Church made the Jews accountable for the death of Christ hence the stupid attacks and deaths many had to suffer. Sadly this was done in opposition to the Scriptures and Rome has to hold up its hand on that one as well as the Eastern Orhtodox system. So, according to Jesus' parables these systems whilst integrated inside the Abrahamic Covenant will be judged accordingly when Jesus Christ returns. Unfortunately Islam which has nothing to do with Abraham other than through the bastard son Ishmael has nothing to offer but death. For sure many Muslims will come to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour as can be seen on youtube but for the most that will never happen.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is an excellent Report: Unsettled Belonging: Britain's Muslim Communities done by Policy Research (https://policyexchange.org.uk/public...m-communities/)
Here are some statistics in.
You say there is no difference between Christian and Muslim violence today, so I would like to see statistics as those above.
However, for Christians there are no such statistics because Christianity is not a problematic (you can say aggressive) Religion anymore as Islam is.

You clearly haven't really gone through this study as, while it's only about British Muslims, it doesn't address most, if not all, of the questions you listed earlier. This seems more like an attempt to appear to be using actual studies and data instead of actually having relevant ones. My previous post remains valid.

You deny that Islam does have a massive Problem with violence.
If certain suras are quoted you only say this is not correct because they are quoted wrongly or they describe historic Events who can not be used today anymore.
Same cherrypicking and denying do the appeasers, they deny to recognize that there is a Problem.
But other Muslims have been using these suras in the context to murder and they have been justified by high members of Islamic clergy.
Any critique on Islam is simply hidden Islamophobie (because there is nothing you can criticize on Islam, so you can only be an Islamophope aka rascist).
The known Muslim victimhood Show.

I reject that Quran in its purest form has a problem with violence the way you put it, yes. Islam on the other hand is a much larger concept. To label that as propaganda and what "appeasers" do is a very weak argument that exist for the sake of arguing it. If you can't differentiate between religion and follower we will keep pointing at the problems with your arguments. If you choose to not have a productive conversation but choose to jump from point to point without acknowledging the failure of your arguments I will likely label such arguments as ignorant and bigoted. It's funny though, people deny they're Islamophobe more than they're accused of being one. It became apparent that the concept of Islamophobia became a way to silence criticism of criticism of Islam rather than the silence of criticism of Islam as you suggest.

[Diocle]

I reject that Quran in its purest form has a problem with violence the way you put it, yes. Islam on the other hand is a much larger concept.

I don't see how can you reject that Quran has a BIG problem concerning violence. Really, it's beyond my understanding.

In my opinion Quran and Islam are pure violence from the beginnings. Quran is violence because Muhammad was a violent person, living in a harsh and violent Dark Age context, without any cultural and philosophical capability of understanding that persuade does not mean indoctrinating, that conquering means conquering souls and minds, more than physical bodies, that free choice is the main quality of any faith, that god donesn't ask for blood, god doesn't ask to kill and suppress all those not belonging to your faith. Muhammad was just a poor bedouin without education, living in a world in which tribal violence was the rule more than the exception and such was the book he wrote, a text in which those who don't belong to your group are called "infidels", and, as such, they have to be fought and not persuaded. The terrible logic of Muhammad, was binary: I'm the good, the others are the evil; those who understand me are good, the others are enemies and must be fought; expansion of the faith means conquest, armed conquest, sword in hand and flags flying, he was not even touched by doubts, complexities, nuances of any kind, in his binary world what is not with him is against him.
Quran turns off the light and throws us a millennium back, into the most barbaric and ferocious Dark Ages.

This is why I'm Islamophobe with no regret, I fear a religion which is also a drug, turning off the light of reason in its addicts, a religion described in a book that is more a military manual for its ferocious disciples, than a philosophical text. I think Islamism as religion is a deadly threat for the civil cohabitation of men of good will of any faith and ethnic belonging they are; Buddhists, Christians, animists, pagans, atheists are all targets for any true Islamist, because Islam doesn't ask to persuade, Islam asks to fight against the infidels, this makes the Quaran, with its terrible binary logic, a very dangerous omicidal book.

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't see how can you reject that Quran has a BIG problem concerning violence. Really, it's beyond my understanding.

In my opinion Quran and Islam are pure violence from the beginnings. Quran is violence because Muhammad was a violent person, living in a harsh and violent Dark Age context, without any cultural and philosophical capability of understanding that persuade does not mean indoctrinating, that conquering means conquering souls and minds, more than physical bodies, that free choice is the main quality of any faith, that god donesn't ask for blood, god doesn't ask to kill and suppress all those not belonging to your faith. Muhammad was just a poor bedouin without education, living in a world in which tribal violence was the rule more than the exception and such was the book he wrote, a text in which those who don't belong to your group are called "infidels", and, as such, they have to be fought and not persuaded. The terrible logic of Muhammad, was binary: I'm the good, the others are the evil; those who understand me are good, the others are enemies and must be fought; expansion of the faith means conquest, armed conquest, sword in hand and flags flying, he was not even touched by doubts, complexities, nuances of any kind, in his binary world what is not with him is against him.
Quran turns off the light and throws us a millennium back, into the most barbaric and ferocious Dark Ages.

This is why I'm Islamophobe with no regret, I fear a religion which is also a drug, turning off the light of reason in its addicts, a religion described in a book that is more a military manual for its ferocious disciples, than a philosophical text. I think Islamism as religion is a deadly threat for the civil cohabitation of men of good will of any faith and ethnic belonging they are; Buddhists, Christians, animists, pagans, atheists are all targets for any true Islamist, because Islam doesn't ask to persuade, Islam asks to fight against the infidels, this makes the Quaran, with its terrible binary logic, a very dangerous omicidal book.

We know for a fact that Quran is not pure violence. That's a demonstrable fact that makes no sense to deny. Quran only permits violence in self defense whether its against non-Muslims or not.

A millenia ago, it was dark ages for the Christian Europe but it was the golden age of Islam on the lands Muslims ruled over. Even for today, if Islam is what you claim it to be then you'd be dead already.

16:125 Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

[Infidel144]

Sumskilz had earlier add some commentary and quotes from Paul, showing that christians are not under the OT Law (perhaps, to be more clear, and as alluded to by basics, this refers to the civil, judicial, ceremonial law; the moral law is traditionally held as binding, but the judicial or civil precepts associated are not):

It is specific as to who the commands are for, when something applies to foreigners living among the tribes of Israel, then that's specified. I just mentioned this because it's what I'm familiar with, but what's more important is that Christians, with the exception of some early Jewish Christians, have always viewed Mosaic law as not applying to them. It is a fundamental aspect of their religion, and they have a scriptural basis for this:
14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
~Romans 6:14
1 Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only during that person’s lifetime? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress.
4 In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.
~Romans 7:1-6
10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” 12 But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”
~Galatians 3:10-13
24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian,
~Galatians 3:24-25

And lets add some commentary in dialogue by an authority, St. Thomas Aquinas, from Summa Theologiae:

Article 3. Whether the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever?

Objection 1. It would seem that the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever. Because the judicial precepts relate to the virtue of justice: since a judgment is an execution of the virtue of justice. Now "justice is perpetual and immortal" (Wisdom 1:15). Therefore the judicial precepts bind for ever.

Objection 2. Further, Divine institutions are more enduring than human institutions. But the judicial precepts of human laws bind for ever. Therefore much more do the judicial precepts of the Divine Law.

Objection 3. Further, the Apostle says (Hebrews 7:18) that "there is a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Now this is true of the ceremonial precept, which "could [Vulgate: 'can'] not, as to the conscience, make him perfect that serveth only in meats and in drinks, and divers washings and justices of the flesh," as the Apostle declares (Hebrews 9:9-10). On the other hand, the judicial precepts were useful and efficacious in respect of the purpose for which they were instituted, viz. to establish justice and equity among men. Therefore the judicial precepts of the Old Law are not set aside, but still retain their efficacy.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Hebrews 7:12) that "the priesthood being translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of the Law." But the priesthood was transferred from Aaron to Christ. Therefore the entire Law was also transferred. Therefore the judicial precepts are no longer in force.

I answer that, The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the ceremonial precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only "dead," but also deadly to those who observe them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law: for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.
The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been said above (Article 2). For it has been stated that the ceremonial precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being instituted chiefly for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not instituted that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently, when the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law was a pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in Galatians 3:24. Since, however, these judicial precepts are instituted, not for the purpose of being figures, but for the performance of certain deeds, the observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. But the intention of observing them, as though one were bound by the Law, is prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ has not yet come.

Reply to Objection 1. The obligation of observing justice is indeed perpetual. But the determination of those things that are just, according to human or Divine institution, must needs be different, according to the different states of mankind.

Reply to Objection 2. The judicial precepts established by men retain their binding force for ever, so long as the state of government remains the same. But if the state or nation pass to another form of government, the laws must needs be changed. For democracy, which is government by the people, demands different laws from those of oligarchy, which is government by the rich, as the Philosopher shows (Polit. iv, 1). Consequently when the state of that people changed, the judicial precepts had to be changed also.

Reply to Objection 3. Those judicial precepts directed the people to justice and equity, in keeping with the demands of that state. But after the coming of Christ, there had to be a change in the state of that people, so that in Christ there was no distinction between Gentile and Jew, as there had been before. For this reason the judicial precepts needed to be changed also.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2104.htm

[Prodromos]

Just for the interested, Christianity came about as a consequence of the Jewish Scriptures which were thousands of years in advance of Islam and hundreds ahead of Islam. It is built on the truth written by the prophets that Jesus Christ would come into the world as a man yet still be God. The consequence of that truth turned all the lands around the Middle East to being Christian, Jewish and Pagan Arab. They lived in relative safety and peace until Mohammed started his conquests so there is no disputing that. Yes, the Jews did rebel against Rome but these rebellions didn't last long. There did come a time when the Roman Catholic Church made the Jews accountable for the death of Christ hence the stupid attacks and deaths many had to suffer. Sadly this was done in opposition to the Scriptures and Rome has to hold up its hand on that one as well as the Eastern Orhtodox system. So, according to Jesus' parables these systems whilst integrated inside the Abrahamic Covenant will be judged accordingly when Jesus Christ returns. Unfortunately Islam which has nothing to do with Abraham other than through the bastard son Ishmael has nothing to offer but death. For sure many Muslims will come to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour as can be seen on youtube but for the most that will never happen.

This video was made by a controversial organization, so I'd take the story with a grain of salt. But it mirrors the stories of quite a few converts I've known. It's a nice story.

Muslim Woman Gives Jesus One Week To Prove Himself Before Ending Her Life.



Interesting that Islam spreads via war and threatens apostates with violence, whereas Christianity appeals to the goodness of people to convert them. Reminds me of that speech by the previous Pope, Benedict.

In his 2006 speech, simply titled "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections," Benedict characteristically took up a knotty concept -- the interplay of faith and reason. He wanted to show how reason untethered from faith leads to fanaticism and violence.

To illustrate that case, Benedict dug up an obscure 14th-century dialogue between a long-forgotten Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar about the concept of violence in Islam.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," Benedict quoted the emperor as saying to his Islamic interlocutor.

In Islamic teaching, Benedict said, "God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality."

Given the tinderbox that was the Muslim world then, as now, it was no surprise that Benedict's citation of Islam as an example of a religion gone wild touched off the firestorm.

Not only were moderate Muslims offended, but extremists attacked churches in the West Bank, killed an Italian nun in Somalia and beheaded a priest in Iraq. Benedict's allies saw those episodes as proving the pope's point, and they cheered his willingness to "get tough" with Islam. "Benedict the Brave," the Wall Street Journal called him.

Was Pope Benedict XVI right about Islam?

[Diocle]

Benedict was right indeed he was so right that .. he has been removed.

[Stívarðr Reynitré]

My religious journey is huge and unwieldy. It's something I never thought possible and something I find incredibly remarkable now.

And - although I follow my religion with a fervour I've never considered possible - I fail to understand how rational human beings can so readily discount the opinions of others.

There are elements of religions I despise - because of my journey - but I find it preposterous to condemn them so readily. I will challenge them though.

[basics]

Opinions on Islam will flutter depending on whose side your on but we're not talking about opinions, rather facts on the ground as we stand here in 2017. Mohammedans cannot deny that there are people from within Islam who follow more rigorously what is written in their book. They all know that the objective is to dominate the world and so silent approval has been until now pretty much the way things have gone. Peoples are beginning to cry, enough is enough, and the liberal content in these societies are not happy about that now claiming that the poor ole Mohammedan is being picked on as if it was the victim all along. It never has been nor will it ever be a victim as long as its ambition is to rule the world, why? Because God won't let them. Simple as that.

[Heathen Hammer]

I think that general idea behind all Abrahamic religions is somewhat devoid of actual substance. Look no further then Old Testament, (venerated by all 3 main Abrahamic cults) YHWH/Allah itself was a vengeful, but its vengefullness reflected upon its own weakness. While non-Abrrahamic Gods exist parallel to the world of Man (occasionally interfering in Man's world for their own gains and visa versa), YHWH demanded worship, as if being worshiped by some puny mortals si something a truly powerful God would not be able to exist without. This is somewhat reflected by comparison of cultures with and without influence of Abrahamic cults. Christian, Islamic and Jewish cultures only stopped being primitive after being infused with more sophisticated "Pagan" culture and ideas. With that in mind, it is interesting how Lucifer is a much more interesting character in Semitic mythology in YHWH. Bringer of light, who gave the gift of knowledge to Men, he is somewhat of a Prometheus archetype.

[basics]

Heathen Hammer,

God said, " I Am the Lord thy God.....thou shalt have no other gods before Me," why, " Becasuse I Am a jealous God," and therein lies the mind of God concerning Himself as against His creation. Angels were created beings and Lucifer was said to be the most favoured of all but like all those given a sense of free-will his pride got the better of him and so he fell. That's the generalisation of it and with what God had Moses write he was obviously going to be in opposition to all that the Trinity had in store for the rest of us. And so we find in the first chapters of Genesis the announcement of a contest that continues until the final judgement between " the Seed " and Satan who is accepted to be Lucifer. The thing for folks to puzzle over is why if Lucifer is so powerful and worthy of that power why he has never had a bible written for him as Christ Jesus has? Oh, we know that the genre surrounding him is probably the most watched/read in fictional films or books but these are not the same as has been written about Jesus Christ, nor witnessed by others as to the veracity of His actions and workings whilst here on earth.

[fkizz]

I think that general idea behind all Abrahamic religions is somewhat devoid of actual substance. Look no further then Old Testament, (venerated by all 3 main Abrahamic cults) YHWH/Allah itself was a vengeful, but its vengefullness reflected upon its own weakness. While non-Abrrahamic Gods exist parallel to the world of Man (occasionally interfering in Man's world for their own gains and visa versa), YHWH demanded worship, as if being worshiped by some puny mortals si something a truly powerful God would not be able to exist without. This is somewhat reflected by comparison of cultures with and without influence of Abrahamic cults. Christian, Islamic and Jewish cultures only stopped being primitive after being infused with more sophisticated "Pagan" culture and ideas. With that in mind, it is interesting how Lucifer is a much more interesting character in Semitic mythology in YHWH. Bringer of light, who gave the gift of knowledge to Men, he is somewhat of a Prometheus archetype.

? Pagan Religions had Gods who demanded worship too. Actually it sort of becomes Universal that religions have their Deities demanding worship, Abrahamic or not.

Lucifer is former #2, (formerly) aproved by God such hierarchy, of course he has to have interesting features. If he didn't, what would that say of The #1?
Also for #21423452345 time, Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil =/= Fruit of Knowledge. That's where Prometeus splits from Lucifer. Prometeus is linked to technology, Lucifer is linked to burdening people with Free Will and Moral choices which Eden simply is not the place to face Ethical dilemas, our Earthly life is more suited to that.

Interesting you mention YHWH demanding worship. It often was to sacrifice some cattle, that could be eaten later, meanwhile many pagan religions demanded an actual human to be sacrificed to appease the Pagan gods, and cannibalism was a no no.

You've been reading too much Nietzsche.

Heathen Hammer,

God said, " I Am the Lord thy God.....thou shalt have no other gods before Me," why, " Becasuse I Am a jealous God,"

From my Romance Language Bible, I can detect some linguistic loss in translation. It is "because I am zealous God", and back in KJV time jealous was closer to zealous in philological meaning I'm assuming.

Zealous and Jealous sound similiar enough to be lost in translation, mainly given centuries have passed.

[basics]

The thing about Christianity is that one only has to believe with no other do's and don'ts for God to change their lives forever. Jesus paid for all those at the cross leaving a new believer totally free of any condemnation, totally free of seeking any more mercy from God. That's why it is written that you have been bought with a price by Him and His blood at the cross. His blood paid for any and every sin that one would ever commit during the course of their lives. Even the faith to believe comes as a gift from God as does the regeneration that follows the moment one accepts Jesus as being truly their Lord and Saviour.

As for God saying He is jealous or whatever other word may be imposed by other translations I take that to be that He is jealous of what others think of Him as I am jealous of my own reputation. In effect God is laying out the standard by which he is to be reckoned. That standard comes to the fore in the second commandment when He says, " Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," and " Thou shalt not make unto thee " anything, my words here, that try to depict Me in the imagination of man. God said these things because He knew what man could imagine but that imagination could never reach the heights of His actual Character. Man expected that if God were real He would be more forthcoming but as when asked by Moses who he should tell them that He is, His reply was, " Tell them I AM THAT I AM." His works were to be good enough.

[Sogdog]

I am a religionophobe. And proudly so!

[basics]

I am a religionophobe. And proudly so!

Sogdog,

You are not and never have been alone in that as millions upon millions have had similar feelings. Have you ever thought why man in every generation has looked to the skies? Why there are religions in the first place? Like everything else these had to have a beginning and strange as it may seem all are born out of what happened after man fell from grace, grace in which he was a willing partner with God in that special garden. Here was the special link and communion with God that man could not deny. It is that link that men and women can experience in their lives even today that continues on and on which people have tried to obliterate yet can't. Thanks to Adam who wilfully went into disbelief all who followed him had no option but to begin life as unbelievers and even irreligious. The good news is that there is still time for you have that change of heart as long as God keeps breath in you.