What causes muslims to be violent

[Veritas Aequitas]

Everyone knows here that you are stupid. This is the one thing that we all agree on.

We already all know here of your stupidity.

You are too stupid to understand the details.

The above are a sure sign you are losing the argument.

Btw, your foundation is purely based on faith, i.e. belief without proofs nor rational reasons, as such there is no way whatever arguments you produced will be on sound foundations - Garbage In Garbage Out [GIGO].

I justified above and here why TROP is inherently evil with arguments and evidences.
Instead of blabbering the above, provide sound counters and arguments.

[Averroes]

Everyone knows here that you are stupid. This is the one thing that we all agree on.

We already all know here of your stupidity.

You are too stupid to understand the details.

The above are a sure sign you are losing the argument.

And this is sure sign that you are stupid because I was not arguing with you. I was just stating the fact that you are very stupid and a lazy parasite. There is a difference between arguing and stating a fact. Anyway, I don't know why I am even bothering to tell you that; you are too stupid to understand that difference!

Btw, your foundation is purely based on faith

Don't worry about my foundation. You have not replied to my questions though! Are you going to share with me those information that I asked?

[Immanuel Can]

[Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:04 am, on another thread, now being transferred to here]

I would not have described those books you mentioned as being "completely secular".

I understand. Most Muslims really have very little understanding of what a Christian is. They think it has something to do with being born in a "Christian" country (no such thing exists, in actuality) or growing up in a "Christian" culture (also not a real thing), regardless of things like personal belief. That's understandable: it's just the Muslim definition overlaid on the Christian reality. But it's also not correct.

Many persons in the West, as in the East, have very superficial links to anything genuinely "Christian." Like many Muslims, they have a compartment or denomination, to which they have a very limited connection, but their personal belief is something quite different.

Christianity is not a religion of politics, of geography, of culture, or of language, or of submission. It is quite common, for example, for a completely secular person to work in an institutions with a quasi-Christian name. Likewise, many have only a superficial link to any particular denomination or group, perhaps attending on holidays or at weddings, but ideologically are secular.

Check it out, and you'll see.

Meanwhile, what makes a work academic is the orientation and methodology, not merely the names of some of those involved in the collection of data.

Nowhere in the whole three volumes are these statistics mentioned!

Actually, they are. But you've got some work to do to get them.

Take the totals from the wars that are plausibly religious (generously construed: we can give every benefit to our opponents here, lest they complain we are being too conservative.) Total them against the wars listed in the Encyclopedia that are definitely because of other causes, and you get the statistics I cited. But to know that, you have to run the numbers yourself, because being an academic source, they do not draw conclusions about who is at fault for anything. They aren't making that case; so they just present the data. Remember that they are a secular, academic source by methodology, and are not looking to forward a particular agenda relative to any religion.

Don't forget to include the Islamic Crusades, which began with Mohammed in the 7th Century and continue. But take the numbers, add them up, and you'll get the same facts.

Yours, IC.

[gaffo]

Where are they, B?

the riechwing is out there

Yeah? Where?

I can find you hundreds or thousands of rioting Lefties, burning, looting, whining...They're on the telly every night. I can find you any number of media and political organizations that represent their cause, including major political parties. I can point out to you their books and propaganda sources. I can locate their proponents in the university, without even having to get out of my chair. I can show the effects of all their doings, and I can name many of them by name. I can even give you a body count of the people they've killed and injured.

They are not just "out there" in the vague beyond...they're right here, right now, in front of our faces.

Where are the "righties"?

six of them were arrested today for Conspirsy and attempted kidnapping.

thats where they ARE - get back to me when you are objective in this discussion, i can no wish to take to a biased person that denies the Right has equal numbers to the left and so are an equal threat to my Republic.

remove your bias on this matter, then you and i can talk, but not before hand.

good day.

[Immanuel Can]

Where are the "righties"?

six of them were arrested today for Conspirsy and attempted kidnapping.

First I've heard of it. If those are them, you got all six.

So where are the rest? I can find you a thousand lunatic Lefties in Portland alone.

But I checked out the news reports. They say it was a militia group called the Wolverine Watchmen. They have no political affiliation with any party. They're so odd and "out there" that they're not even listed by the Southern Poverty Law Centre as an existing group. The New York Post reports that their website says, “Everyone is welcome, regardless of race, creed, color, religion or political affiliation, provided you do not wish to bring harm to our country or people." That hardly sounds like a demonstration of some right-wing conspiracy to me. More like a bunch of random loonies.

Nobody has even heard of them until today. They're doing really bad PR, I guess.

[gaffo]

seems to me: if joe hates lesbians, but leaves 'em be, he's exercising' toleration

seems to me: if mustafa hates lesbians, and burns 'em up, he's not exercisin' toleration

tolarace is as tolarance does, lets leave "mustafa" out of it, until you can show reichwings are more tolarant than "mustafa".

until them i equate them as the same.

you can equate as you like, but it's islamists who toss gays offa roofs, not right wingers; it's islamists who burn 'em alive in cages, not right wingers; it's islamists who throw acid in folks' faces, not right wingers; little girls in the clutches of islamists end up havin' their clits sliced off; little girls in right winger homes get to keep theirs

your term Islamist is biased it assumes all muslims are rabid talliban-types. some are - oh and i noted your burn 'em alive in cages that person - was a Muslim f-16 Jordanian pilot. you do know this yes?

He was a Muslim, and probably a good guy and did not deserve his fate - being burned alive is the worst way to die, its slow and painfull.

islamists desire an aggressive theocracy; right wingers want to preserve the constitutional republic, emphasis on constitutional


me, I can't see the equivalence

well i see them the same bubba, if you do not then you need to talk to the 6 riechwing thugs that were arrested today. and maybe you can bull your head out while your at it so you can breath and get some objctive perspective.

those 6 reichwinger thugs have no more love for our Constitution than any members of the Taliban - they are the same - only difference is which thugGod they worship.

[Averroes]

[Averroes wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:04 am, on another thread, now being transferred to here]

I would not have described those books you mentioned as being "completely secular".

I understand. Most Muslims really have very little understanding of what a Christian is.

Reading your post got me interested in furthering my understanding of Christianity. No Christian before you wanted to provide an adequate explanation, so that's why I have little understanding of how Christians themselves understand Christianity. They all shy away from explaining their fundamental belief to me. And that's one of the reasons why I and so many other Christians have left it! But it seems that that's about to change, as at last I found a Christian willing to do the adequate explanations and share with me their perspective on Christianity. We are so fortunate to have met each other; I willing to listen about Christianity and you clearly willing to do provide those explanations. I just hope you don't quit again now!

So previously on this thread itself, just before you suddenly quited the discussion, you said to me
in post#471865 that one cannot be a Christian without believing that Jesus was God. First of all, do you still believe that or have you changed? If you still believe that and are still willing to do the explanations of what it is to be a Christian, then please explain to me the sources for your fundamental belief that according to you Jesus was God. Is it in the Bible? If so, please can you quote some Biblical passage where your fundamental Christian belief is found in the Bible, so that I may have more understanding of Christianity from the point of view of a Christian. Please don't quit again.

If you think the present thread is not the appropriate thread to answer those questions, then do the same thing as you did with your previous post on this thread addressed to me; that is transfer the answer to a thread that you think is more appropriate. Here is my suggestion of an appropriate thread where you could put the answer: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=28692

For others reading this, my present discussion on this thread with Immanuel Can started on another section of the forum , but Immanuel Can judged that it would be more appropriate to put the answer on the present thread with a concern to being on topic. The following is my post on another section of the forum to which Immanuel Can was replying:viewtopic.php?p=474759#p474759

Nowhere in the whole three volumes are these statistics mentioned!

Actually, they are. But you've got some work to do to get them.

That sounds interesting too. I would like to do that. God willing, we can then compare our notes and results.
But first I have to have more understanding of Christianity. So, God willing we will address that just after you have adequately explained to me the fundamental aspects of Christianity. I thank you in advance for your willingness to share with me your understanding of Christianity.

[Immanuel Can]

...please explain to me the sources for your fundamental belief that according to you Jesus was God. Is it in the Bible? If so, please can you quote some Biblical passage where your fundamental Christian belief is found in the Bible, so that I may have more understanding of Christianity from the point of view of a Christian.

Hmmm...you seem so sincere. I'm completely fooled.

You've been around on the internet, and you haven't found a site willing to provide this information to you? I find that difficult to believe. But I can help you find one. Here you go: https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-ke ... salvation/ Here's another: https://dailyverses.net/salvation. There are, of course, a host of others that can provide you with such an abundance of such verses.

Is that what you really want? I suspect not. But if it genuinely is, you now have it.

[henry quirk]

your term Islamist is biased it assumes all muslims are rabid talliban-types.

there are muslims and there are islamists


i noted your burn 'em alive in cages that person - was a Muslim f-16 Jordanian pilot. you do know this yes?

how does it matter who got burned up in a cage?


He was a Muslim, and probably a good guy and did not deserve his fate - being burned alive is the worst way to die, its slow and painfull.

nobody deserves that...plenty deserve a bullet to the brain, sure, but none ought to burn to death


the 6 riechwing thugs

first, I suspect the charges are trumped up...just another political spectacle concocted to discredit

second, even if true: I can't see how 'muricans lookin' to break the grip of an oversteppin' governor is equivalent to hordes of commie dupes burnin' & lootin', or theocrats, as I say, tossin' gays offa rooftops or mutilatin' kid's genitals or burnin' folks alive or throwin' acid into faces or...


get some objctive perspective

no such animal exists...but, if it did, you'd need to belly up to the table and have yourself a couple or three servings yourself

[Belinda]

Averroes, the belief that Jesus is God is a main part of Trinitarian Christianity. Most 'Christians' are Trinitarians. However few 'Christians' understand the Holy Trinity intellectually. I am not really a Christian but I understand that "Jesus is God" means the Almighty who is goodness personified did take on the semblance and actual life of a man so we can know what Earthly goodness is.

Muslims know what Earthly goodness is because they have, not a life lived, but a holy Book. Although Muhammad's life and work does seem Messianic.

[Averroes]

...please explain to me the sources for your fundamental belief that according to you Jesus was God. Is it in the Bible? If so, please can you quote some Biblical passage where your fundamental Christian belief is found in the Bible, so that I may have more understanding of Christianity from the point of view of a Christian.

Hmmm...you seem so sincere. I'm completely fooled.

Please, I am not trying to fool you or anyone. I just want to discuss with you as we have been discussing, ie in a respectful and polite exchange of point of view.

But I can help you find one. Here you go: https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-ke ... salvation/ Here's another: https://dailyverses.net/salvation.

Thank you, I appreciate your effort of providing me some verses from the Bible to read, and I read them. What I found, however, from reading those verses, with no disrespect to you, is that there are contradictions in them. For example, John 3:16–18 is quoted in one of your links as follows:

• For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18)

John 3:16-18 is saying that there is only one "son of God" in the Bible. But that is false. In the Bible, many people are called "son of God". For example, Adam was called son of God (Luke 3:38),  Jacob/Israel was also called son of God, even the first born(Exodus 4:22),  Solomon as well was called son of God (2 Samuel 7:13-14) in the Bible. And a lot of other man are called son of God in the Bible. So there is a clear contradiction in John 3:16:18. The expression "son of God" is only a metaphor being used in the Bible,  because we all know that Adam had no biological father and mother. The biological father of Jacob was Isaac and the biological father Solomon was David. And Jesus like Adam had no biological father.

And there are other contradictions as well in the biblical verses quoted on those sites. I could go through them one by one, but there being contradictions in the Bible is not the point concerning our present discussion. Every knowledgable Christian knows and accepts that there are contradictions and errors in the Bible. Even the Vatican acknowledged that. You too must already know that, but they that's not the point here.

The main problem though is that none of those biblical verses quoted on those sites are even remotely saying that Jesus was God. In fact, there is a clear distinction being made between God and Jesus in all those verses and throughout the New Testament as well. For example, John 17:1-3 reads as follows:

• After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.[John 17:1-3]

In John 17:3, it can be clearly seen that biblical Jesus was saying that the only true God is the Father who had sent him. By explicitly saying that the Father was the only true God who had sent him, biblical Jesus clearly denied that he was God.

And Acts 2:22 as well says that Jesus was only a man sent by God to preach His message, and thus Jesus was not God. And all the verses quoted on both sites you provided revolves around that central idea that Jesus was a man sent to mankind by God. And with that I have no issue whatsoever as it is clear from the Bible itself that Jesus was a messenger of God and not God, the Almighty Himself.

There are, of course, a host of others that can provide you with such an abundance of such verses.
Is that what you really want?

You are making an effort which I greatly appreciate, but I have not found what I was asking from you. Can you please provide the verses from where you draw your fundamental belief that, according to you, Jesus was God? If you want to provide some explanation/argument along with those verses, please do so. I just want to understand how you view your fundamental belief to be founded in the Bible. Don't worry I won't disrespect you. I am forbidden by God the Almighty from doing so anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

John 3:16-18 is saying that there is only one "son of God" in the Bible.

It's not, actually. Look again. It's only saying there is only one "only begotten" Son -- you''ll see that it says that there. "Only begotten" is the KJV translation's attempt to convert a Greek word to English, and the key emphasis is supposed to be on "only," not "begotten," (as "begotten" is an antiquated and imprecise word, there, and does not actually appear in the Greek) and as you can see from more recent translations, a better word would have been "unique," or "only-of-kind." That's how we should understand it today.

So when John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His unique Son," it's not claiming God has no other sons. For example, any other sons-by-spiritual birth (John 3:16, see also John 1:9-13 ) will be derived from this unique Son, i.e. the only Son of this kind that God has. So that all who are "born again," or "born from above," more literally, as per John 3:16, are called "sons of God." But they are only sons by second birth, not THE Son of God.

The true emphasis of John 3:16, then, is exactly what you deny: the uniqueness of the Sonship relation of Christ to God the Father.

And there are other contradictions as well in the biblical verses quoted on those sites.

Well, now, that one was obviously NOT a contradiction. And hopefully, you understand it better now. So no, I don't agree that this justifies supposing "there are other contradictions as well," and I would expect we could pick through them one by one and show where your reading went wrong on them, as well.

But to what end? You're evidently not reading to understand; you're reading to dismiss. And those who are determined to dismiss can always find a reason to dismiss. So we could go into a "verse swap," in which you send a verse, and I show you how you got it wrong. But I wouldn't change your mind, unless your mind was open to be changed. And would you enjoy a similar exercise performed on the Koran? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't sit still for that.

So what is the end game here?

You are making an effort which I greatly appreciate, but I have not found what I was asking from you. Can you please provide the verses from where you draw your fundamental belief that, according to you, Jesus was God?

You're actually wrong, as I have showed you. John 3:16 affirms the unique relation of Son as belonging to Jesus Christ. But we could go on, and I'll give you another website that lists such verses: https://www.openbible.info/topics/deity_of_christ

Yet, I really have to doubt your sincerity. I have good reason to suppose you have no interest in this one either: I know, because even a person with basic search skills can find many such sites, and yet you pretend you can't. A person who cared would have already searched out this information, and would have advanced questions about it...not without actually reading it thoughtfully, as you did with John 3:16, but carefully, and with a willingness to be convinced if the evidence warrants it. That's really all it takes: but you didn't even try. Why not, if you were sincere?

Frankly, I have to say that I just don't believe the version of yourself you're trying to portray to me. It doesn't fit with that fact.

So where does all this get us? Nowhere, apparently. A person has to be willing to listen and to change his mind. I see nothing in your treatment of John 3:16 to suggest any interest in understanding. But as a Christian, my duty is only to point you to the truth, not to force you to take it in.

That's a key difference from Islam. Islam is "submission." In Islam, one can force people to submit to Allah, and one can compel the saying of the shahadah by force, if necessary. Christianity, rightly understood, can never be compelled. Mere submission is not enough. One must believe in one's heart and voluntarily confess with one's own lips (Romans 10:9) -- things which no force can compel, as John Locke rightly pointed out long ago.

So I cannot persuade you. A man must choose to listen. And you can stop your ears. I can't make you do otherwise. All I can tell you is that if, one day, you're ready to consider this question sincerely, there are answers.

Christianity is a belief of faith. That doesn't mean believing in things you have no reason to think are true; rather, it means that unless a person comes to God with an attitude of faith, he's going to see nothing, get nothing and understand nothing. It doesn't even have to be MUCH faith -- as Jesus said, it can be "as small as a mustard seed." But there has to be some intention to understand, some willingness to be persuaded (if the evidence is good), and some willingness to believe (if it's justified to do so). If there's no, nobody will ever understand anything about God.

And God has arranged it this way. As the Bible says, "He who comes to [God] must believe that He is [exists], and that He is the Rewarder of those who seek Him." If you've already decided the Christian God is not allowed to exist, then don't be surprised if you never find Him. That's what He promised would happen.

John Locke said the same thing. Here's a quote from his Essay Concerning Toleration:

“But if God … would have men forced to heaven, it must not be by the outward violence of the magistrate on men’s bodies, but the inward constraints of his own spirit on their minds, which are not to be wrought on by any human compulsion. The way to salvation not being any forced exterior performance, but the voluntary and secret choice of the mind, and it cannot be supposed that God would make use of any means which could not reach but would rather cross the attainment of the end. Nor can it be thought that men should give the magistrate a power to choose for them their way to salvation, which is too great to give away, if not impossible to part with.” (177)

In this, Christianity is quite different from Islam. A man can be "submitted" to Islam by use of the sword. No such thing will work in Christianity, because it must be believed, and that voluntarily. The Catholics got that bit dead wrong, in the Crusades. But Islam can submit by force, conquer with the sword, and advance by violence. Mohammed did that, and Islam does not have to win voluntarily or by belief. But I'm sure you know that.

Back to John 3: 16 -- "...that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Belief is absolutely necessary. God will have it no other way.

So you cannot be forced, as Locke says. It must be because you actually believe in the truth of it. And that, you can resist. God has given men that power. And I have no intention to make you submit, even if I could. I know you must believe for yourself.

And you know where the facts you need to consider are now.

[Skepdick]

John 3:16-18 is saying that there is only one "son of God" in the Bible.

It's not, actually. Look again. It's only saying there is only one "only begotten" Son -- you''ll see that it says that there. "Only begotten" is the KJV translation's attempt to convert a Greek word to English, and the key emphasis is supposed to be on "only," not "begotten," (as "begotten" is an antiquated and imprecise word, there, and does not actually appear in the Greek) and as you can see from more recent translations, a better word would have been "unique," or "only-of-kind."

So are you saying that Adam was not "begotten" ?

And if you are insisting that the word "begotten" (a translation of the Greek μονογενῆ) means "unique" and "only-of-kind", then why is this exact word also used to describe Isaac in KJV Hebrews 11:17 ?

Was Ishmael not "begotten"?
Was Zimran not "begotten"?
Was Shuah not "begotten"?
Was Ishbak not "begotten"?
Was Midian not "begotten"?
Was Medan not "begotten"?
Was Jokshan not "begotten"?

Obviously you are interpreting the meaning of μονογενῆ selectively.

[Immanuel Can]

So are you saying that Adam was not "unique" or "only-of-kind" ?

The first of anything is always "unique," in that it is first. But that's the only "uniqueness" Adam had. Other than that, he was an ordinary man.

And if you are insisting that the word "begotten" (a translation of the Greek μονογενῆ) means "unique" and "only-of-kind", then why is this exact word also used to describe Isaac in KJV Hebrews 11:17 ?

Because Isaac was also unique, but in a different way. You have perhaps forgotten that Isaac was NOT Abraham's only son. There was Ishmael, who came first, and was the elder -- by traditional rights, the "firstborn" and elder, heir of the father. In spite of this, Ishmael was not the son of promise, as Hebrews 11 indicates. Only Isaac was. So Isaac is "unique" in contrast to Abraham's other son.

Interestingly, the Koran reverses this, and claims that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-promise. Apparently, Mohammed's memory failed him on this point, because the Jewish and Christian manuscripts, which predate Mohammed by several centuries, all show otherwise.

But John 3:16 isn't considering two sons, one the firstborn and the second the son of promise. Rather, in John 3:16, the contrast is between the "unique Son," and the "whosoever" (KJV), that is, all other people, provided they would believe, without restriction. The contrast is Christ, on the one hand, and everybody else on the other. And in that comparison, the verse says, Jesus Christ is the only of His kind. The Father has no other Sons like Him.

[Skepdick]

The first of anything is always "unique," in that it is first. But that's the only "uniqueness" Adam had. Other than that, he was an ordinary man.

Then you are equivocating the meaning of "begotten".

Adam was the first. Other than that he was an ordinary man.
Isaac wasn't the first. Other than that he was an ordinary man.

If Isaac was "begotten" then so was Adam.

Because Isaac was also unique, but in a different way.

Q.E.D. Equivocation.

You have perhaps forgotten that Isaac was NOT Abraham's only son.

I haven't. That's why I listed all the other ones.

And in that comparison, the verse says, Jesus Christ is the only of His kind. The Father has no other Sons like Him.

Isaac too was the only son of His kind. Abraham had no other Sons like Him.

But Abraham did have other sons, and Isaac was still "begotten".
So God had other sons too, even if Jesus was "begotten".