Australian Politics Forum - Muhammad as the anti-christ

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #30 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:49pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on the idea that sacrificing yourself per se is necessarily a spiritual act. Surely a spiritual act must have some meaning vis-a-vis bringing you closer to God. Now you might say handing himself in and sacrificing himself would be 'spiritual' because it would save lives - but I would say it would likely result in the killing of his entire community - not to mention the death of his message and religion. Particularly given the fact that the revelation was not complete, and continued right up until the rest of Muhammad's life. A muslim would doubtless say that its not very 'spiritual' to cut short the revelation of the Quran mid-way through, and finish off the muslim community before it ever really began. While I'm a bit scratchy on Christian history - I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't crucified mid-way through his message.

It wasn't the act of self-sacrifice that made him spiritual; it was the fact that he made the CHOICE to do so of his own volition. The revelation aspect has nothing to do with it. This is about moving away from the animal toward the anti-animal, shedding ourselves of animalistic instincts. Jesus achieved this more than Muhammad: for e.g. he didn't have a lover/partner - i.e. he never had sex, which is very animalistic; he didn't accumulate wealth or material possessions, which is also very animalistic, etc. Muhammad did neither of these things.

I also don't buy the rather simplistic notion that anything done of a temporal nature - such as preserving a state and community - is some antithesis to spirituality. True, its not exactly a 'spiritual' thing to do - but doing it doesn't necessarily make you a "non-spiritual" person. Its pretty silly to insist that the only people who can be spiritual must be completely removed from the day to day monotony of the temporal world.

Then, I would argue that you're not really a spiritual person then. True spiritual people are those who are able to devoid themselves of attachment of materialism, show compassion, etc. For e.g. I would a true Christian to sell all of his possessions and live in squalor in the slums of Rio. I would expect a Muslim to do the same, considering that Muhammad said that 'those who pile up wealth' will be sent to the Fire.

Of course, at the end of day, no person would do that, which is why Christianity evolved to include the Cosmic Christ - just believe in a set of propositions and you'll be saved. It makes the COST OF DISCIPLESHIP very easy.

Same with Islam: just believe in God and Muhammad and you're ok.

At the end of the day, religion can't be 'too hard' on its followers, otherwise it won't have any followers.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #31 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:50pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Retelling myths as if they were facts, Augie? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

So, you're saying that all the things that Jesus did cannot be adequately commended because he was a fictional character?

So, it's like a tight rope walker with a net under him: "Yeah, ok, but he's God...." ?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 43065

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #32 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 5:45pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Retelling myths as if they were facts, Augie? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

So, you're saying that all the things that Jesus did cannot be adequately commended because he was a fictional character?

As I have indicated in the past, there is no way to verify if Christ existed or not or if he said or did any of the things that you and others claim about him. I am unsure why you find this difficult to understand, Augie. You're an intelligent person. Seems you're a committed Christian as well. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #33 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 5:45pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:27pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Retelling myths as if they were facts, Augie? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

So, you're saying that all the things that Jesus did cannot be adequately commended because he was a fictional character?

As I have indicated in the past, there is no way to verify if Christ existed or not or if he said or did any of the things that you and others claim about him. I am unsure why you find this difficult to understand, Augie. You're an intelligent person. Seems you're a committed Christian as well. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 43065

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #34 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:47pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

Perhaps because there is very little, if any, independent evidence to verify his existence? I like my religious leaders to be verifiable, thank'ee. I do not like to rely upon the religion's own claims about what they did or what they said. Roll Eyes

Quote:

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Of course it does. It's like having a pissing contest in cyberspace. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #35 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:49pm

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

Perhaps because there is very little, if any, independent evidence to verify his existence? I like my religious leaders to be verifiable, thank'ee. I do not like to rely upon the religion's own claims about what they did or what they said. Roll Eyes

Quote:

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Of course it does. It's like having a pissing contest in cyberspace. Roll Eyes

Well, that's very convenient for you, isn't it? Any time a person tries to raise a comparison of any religious figure with Christ, you're rebuttal is: "Oh, but he's not real, you know.... Next!"

BTW, many historians agree that Christ was a real figure.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97274

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #36 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:54pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:46pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO. Instead, he chose to go through humiliation and torture to make his point.

This is the difference: Jesus made the CONSCIOUS choice to go to his DEATH. He acted IRRATIONALLY (in that he wasn't concerned about self-preservation. Muhammad CONSCIOUSLY chose to the things he did. He acted RATIONALLY (in that he was concerned about this self-preservation).

Which ACT DO YOU THINK WAS MORE SPIRITUAL?

Dying for a cause, or living for one?

Questions questions.

I would say that consciously choosing to be tortured and die is more spiritual. Muhammad might have lived for the caused, but he killed or ordered the deaths of people. That's not spiritual, Karnal.

Answers, answers.

Good answers.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97274

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #37 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:56pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:13am:

Personally, I believe Muhammad acted and behaved as Jesus would have if Jesus was burdened with an actual state to run and under constant military attack. Who knows, if Arabia had been under the yoke of the most powerful civilization the world had ever known, Muhammad may well have been all 'don't do anything stupid' (militarily) - and 'turn the other cheek' - like Jesus was.

I mean its not like Jesus was in any position to forge any sort of successful independent state in defiance of Rome - even if he wanted to.

You simply can't analyse the two scenarios objectively without acknowledging the vastly different political realities between the two.

That's a lot of lies for one post Gandalf.

Muhammad was not "burdened" with a state. There was literally no state in Arabia at the time. He created it from scratch. No-one forced him to. Jesus would not have done that in the first place, and certainly not as ruthlessly and violently.

It was not under constant attack. It was constantly attacking. Muhammad got away with many years of robbing Meccan trade caravans and killing innocent traders before the Meccans took any action against him to stop the slaughter and theft in the name of Islam.

After he then reached a treaty with Mecca, he sought out a way to get out of it and conquer Mecca, which he subdued without real challenge. After Mecca, he conquered the Arabian peninsula entirely aggressively. In the century after he died, Muslims expanded his empire into the biggest there had ever been.

The Quran specifically states that fighting is only for self defence during the holy months. Outside of then, Muslims are specifically instructed to fight for the purpose of imposing Islam on people - even if, like Gandalf, they detest fighting. This message is repeated in the Quran, along with many, many verses calling on Muslims to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. Gandalf lies about the Quran to claim it says something completely different. He even quotes one of the verses instructing Muslims to impose Islam on people by the sword as evidence the Quran says that war may only be fought in self defence. It is literally opposite day when Gandalf reads from the Quran.

And now he also projects the cynicism of Muslims onto Jesus himself - that love thy enemy, turn the other cheek etc were not his actual message, but a strategic move to get his 'real message' out there. And the real message is something to do with Islam, right Gandalf? Jesus and Muhammad were entirely products of circumstance, and religion ought to flip flop from from peace and tolerance to rape and pillage as the opportunity arises...

Good answer too. Good to see you engaging in a discussion, FD.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 43065

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #38 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:03pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:44pm:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

Perhaps because there is very little, if any, independent evidence to verify his existence? I like my religious leaders to be verifiable, thank'ee. I do not like to rely upon the religion's own claims about what they did or what they said. Roll Eyes

Quote:

For the purposes of the discussion with Gandalf, we are comparing the behaviours of the two founders of each religion. It doesn't matter if either of them existed or not.

Of course it does. It's like having a pissing contest in cyberspace. Roll Eyes

Well, that's very convenient for you, isn't it? Any time a person tries to raise a comparison of any religious figure with Christ, you're rebuttal is: "Oh, but he's not real, you know.... Next!"

You have a problem with the truth, why? Roll Eyes

Quote:

BTW, many historians agree that Christ was a real figure.

Many Christian historians agree that Christ was a real figure. Many non-Christian historians raise doubts about his existence. You need to read more widely, Augie. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 108344
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #39 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:10pm

Yadda wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 4:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

It's very strange as I saw a TV show once about Muhammad.

Apparently in his younger days he toured the Middle East preaching the gospel of Jesus &
that's why Jesus is mentioned so many times in the Koran.
He seems that Muhammad started out as a Christian.

( not only that - all the barbaric laws in the Koran were lifted straight out of the Old Testament from the Jews)

bobby,

You shouldn't believe everything that is presented to you, in a documentary, on TV.

TV documentary producers, are selling something.

In the same way that politicians are selling us something.

If we see a politician on TV, telling us things bobby, should we believe them, because it is on TV ?

Romans 12:9
Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

I've looked on Youtube -
I wish I could find the doco but I can't.

Back to top

IP Logged

Secret Wars Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3928 Gender:	Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ Reply #40 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:19pm I can understand why Brian refuses to engage in any comparison between Big Mo and Jebus as religious representatives. Makes his job as an apologist so much easier. He is really getting value for money from his framed doctorate of divinity from the internets. He deserves it with that sort of rigorous examination.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97274

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #41 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on the idea that sacrificing yourself per se is necessarily a spiritual act. Surely a spiritual act must have some meaning vis-a-vis bringing you closer to God. Now you might say handing himself in and sacrificing himself would be 'spiritual' because it would save lives - but I would say it would likely result in the killing of his entire community - not to mention the death of his message and religion. Particularly given the fact that the revelation was not complete, and continued right up until the rest of Muhammad's life. A muslim would doubtless say that its not very 'spiritual' to cut short the revelation of the Quran mid-way through, and finish off the muslim community before it ever really began. While I'm a bit scratchy on Christian history - I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't crucified mid-way through his message.

I also don't buy the rather simplistic notion that anything done of a temporal nature - such as preserving a state and community - is some antithesis to spirituality. True, its not exactly a 'spiritual' thing to do - but doing it doesn't necessarily make you a "non-spiritual" person. Its pretty silly to insist that the only people who can be spiritual must be completely removed from the day to day monotony of the temporal world.

Another good answer. Religions offer different things. Yeheshua modelled self-sacrifice. The Buddha taught mindfulness. Moh showed how to unite and fight for your beliefs.

Take one, take all. Just as a doctor prescribes different medicine for different diseases, we should find the right spiritual treatment for our ailments.

Each prophet has a different cure. But first, diagnose your symptoms and say Ah.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mr Hammer

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 25212
Gender: male

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #42 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:42pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on the idea that sacrificing yourself per se is necessarily a spiritual act. Surely a spiritual act must have some meaning vis-a-vis bringing you closer to God. Now you might say handing himself in and sacrificing himself would be 'spiritual' because it would save lives - but I would say it would likely result in the killing of his entire community - not to mention the death of his message and religion. Particularly given the fact that the revelation was not complete, and continued right up until the rest of Muhammad's life. A muslim would doubtless say that its not very 'spiritual' to cut short the revelation of the Quran mid-way through, and finish off the muslim community before it ever really began. While I'm a bit scratchy on Christian history - I'm pretty sure Jesus wasn't crucified mid-way through his message.

I also don't buy the rather simplistic notion that anything done of a temporal nature - such as preserving a state and community - is some antithesis to spirituality. True, its not exactly a 'spiritual' thing to do - but doing it doesn't necessarily make you a "non-spiritual" person. Its pretty silly to insist that the only people who can be spiritual must be completely removed from the day to day monotony of the temporal world.

Another good answer. Religions offer different things. Yeheshua modelled self-sacrifice. The Buddha taught mindfulness. Moh showed how to unite and fight for your beliefs.

Take one, take all. Just as a doctor prescribes different medicine for different diseases, we should find the right spiritual treatment for our ailments.

Each prophet has a different cure. But first, diagnose your symptoms and say Ah.

Why not just accept that we all carc it and turn to dust? That opens up a whole new world.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49737
At my desk.

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #43 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:53pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:04pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:17pm:

You're missing the point, Gandalf. It wasn't that Jesus believed it was impossible; he entertained the idea of rebelling against Rome. The point is that HE DIDN'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

Strange, you seem to dismiss the obvious conclusion to be drawn - that he didn't choose to because he knew it was suicide - not just for him, but for his entire people.

So Jesus chose to preach peace and tolerance because he was afraid of death?

Quote:

blah blah blah - and thats a lot of ranting to avoid the most pertinent point: Muhammad (and his people) were attacked first. Amazing how many times you neglect to mention that.

Muhammad and his people robbed Meccan trade caravans and murdered Meccan traders for years prior to the Meccans attacking. That's basically how he acquired 'his people' - the spoils of war made him popular in Medina. I 'neglect to mention that' because it is another lie.

Quote:

So, in each and every case of warfare he was responding to a direct attack him or the Muslim community??? He never conducted pre-emptive warfare in order to eliminate a 'perceived' threat?

Muhammad was the agreesor in nearly every violent encounter. Arguing otherwise is a demonstration of the Islamic principle of hysterical over-reaction and victimhood mongering.

Quote:

Sure its compassionate - its also a smart choice for survival.

You realise Jesus got killed don't you Gandalf? Or are you talking about the Islamic version of Jesus?

Quote:

The key difference here, which I'm not sure why you don't want to acknowledge, is that Muhammad was in a position to fight and win - while Jesus was not. Ignoring all your lofty notions of spirituality and compassion - this alone is adequate in explaining the different approaches does it not?

It is only a key difference and adequate explanation if you assume other religious leaders are as cynical as Muhamamd and his followers, and that their primary agenda is always to rape and pillage, they just build an entirely fabricated ideology (that is the opposite of rape and pillage) as some kind of cunning plan. Otherwise it is just a pissweak excuse for Muhamamd's genocidal tendencies. Also it does not make sense to argue Jesus did what he did to stay alive when he walked open-eyed to his death.

Quote:

Other than that, I believe every military action taken by Muhammad was either in response to a direct military attack against him or his alles - or a violation of a treaty.

How about all the Meccan traders he robbed and killed? You have personally tried to justify this as revenge, not defence.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you are hell-bent on the idea that sacrificing yourself per se is necessarily a spiritual act.

Jesus didn't just slit his wrists Gandalf. Was there some point to this?

Quote:

I also don't buy the rather simplistic notion that anything done of a temporal nature - such as preserving a state and community - is some antithesis to spirituality. True, its not exactly a 'spiritual' thing to do - but doing it doesn't necessarily make you a "non-spiritual" person. Its pretty silly to insist that the only people who can be spiritual must be completely removed from the day to day monotony of the temporal world.

Muhamamd achieved absolute power in his lifetime, with no immediate enemies on the horizon. Instead of doing some good with it, he actually ramped up the rape and pillage. The worst parts of the Quran are the bits he revealed at the end, when he used it to motivate his followers to slaughter innocent people en masse.

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:

How so? First of all, Moses didn't rape a nine-year old girl, did he?

Neither did Mohammed, Augie. He married her first. She was apparently accepting of his advances. His marriage was no different to the numerous other dynastic ones which occurred in Arabia and Europe and Asia at the time. Tsk, tsk, always remember what L.P.Hartley said. Roll Eyes

So it's not rape if other people did it?

Quote:

Then, I would argue that you're not really a spiritual person then.

Abu once described Islam as a "practical religion". I think that is Islamic double speak for a political movement. Like Nazism.

Quote:

I don't find it difficult to understand. I just don't understand why you're trying to dismiss my arguments about the behaviour and teachings of Christ by claiming that he might not have been real?

Brian will avoid discussing his teachings at all costs, because it makes his Islamic apologism a bit too embarrassing. He even once argued that the teachings of a religious leader are irrelevant to how people interpret their teachings. There really is no limit to how stupid his posts will get to defend an indefensible position.

Quote:

Moh showed how to unite and fight for your beliefs.

Including that your belief should be imposed on people through the use of violence.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 43065

Re: Muhammad as the anti-christ
Reply #44 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:57pm

Secret Wars wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:19pm:

I can understand why Brian refuses to engage in any comparison between Big Mo and Jebus as religious representatives. Makes his job as an apologist so much easier.

He is really getting value for money from his framed doctorate of divinity from the internets.

He deserves it with that sort of rigorous examination. Grin

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. The politics of jealousy are on display, yet again. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged