Decreased Muslims

[Agnosthiest]

I'm pretty sure from what I've read that your goal isn't increased knowledge, but decreased Muslims.

What would be most beneficial to the World?

a) If Hindus become secular or converts to another religion.
b) If Jews become secular or converts to another religion.
c) If Christians become secular or converts to another religion.
d) If Muslims become secular or converts to another religion.
e) If Buddhists become secular or converts to another religion.
f) If Seculars become converts to a religion.

I would personally choose (d) anytime. For what have the moslem religion contributed so far? Not much. What are they contributing right now? Where is their Bill Gates? Where is their Jackie Chan? Where is their Celine Dione? Where is their Mother Theresa? nada...Nada...NADA! Instead what you get are moslem rebellions, violent jihads, statewide extremisms, and people like Andak who keep blaming everyone else for islamic screwups.


So you are right Andak, I am dreaming of a decreased number of muslims. Decreased in a manner that Moslems learn to realize how bogus & unproductive their religion is....that they become buddhists instead....or some other better religion out there.

No offense.

[Kenneth]

Where is their Celine Dione?

They can have ours if they don't have one themselves. All in favour say aye.

[Achihud]

Here's an older one from me:

If judaism does not practice spiritism, then there’s nothing left but mere interpretation.
If christianity does not practice spiritism, then there’s nothing left but mere interpretation.

Satan is a master in developing opposing interpretations that will never come together.

Once this theological stalemate is accomplished, another non-spiritualist religion can arise that will challenge both but is nothing of its own. An empty promise to empty peoples, a perfect tool in the hands of satan to eradicate God’s work on earth. But at the same time, also a remedy in the hands of God to eradicate this stubborn self-satisfaction from mere interpretation.

In the end, we all deserve to be challenged by islam.

So no vote from me in here.
Bu-bey!

[Justcurious]

Secularism would rule the world, if the commies had not come first. Cf. Soviet Union's eight-day working week.

[Agnosthiest]

Here's an older one from me:

In the end, we all deserve to be challenged by islam.

So no vote from me in here.
Bu-bey!

Are you saying that Islam is a necesarry evil?

[Achihud]

Are you saying that Islam is a necesarry evil?

Well, I really can't say no the way I see it...

[andak01]

Most beneficial to the world? I suppose it matters what means you use to achieve the end. Is there an option to live and let live?

[Achihud]

Is there an option to live and let live?

How about MUSLIMS set the example for a change!!!

I was quoting from a post originally coming from Agnosthiest (!) where he said...and I quote;

(…) dhimmitude is a slow process of forced conversion. think about it.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sho...6&postcount=44




Bananas full circle!

[andak01]

How about MUSLIMS set the example for a change!!!

I was quoting from a post originally coming from Agnosthiest (!) where he said...and I quote;

99% of us and better do live and let live. It doesn't take millions of spectacular displays of violence to smear the rest of us, particularly when that's what you're looking to do. Enjoy your little hate fest and keep pretending that we all live in caves, don't have any money or any brains.

[varian]

I would reserve my judgement on the unique worldview of each person. If one's worldview is based upon violence and conquest above all other virtues, then I would be opposed to such tyranny. If one's worldview takes on a live and let live philosophy, then I would lean towards accepting anyone with such leanings. There are certain crimes that would be detestable in all regions of the planet, and should not be allowed, no matter what the customs or the mores of the individual person. The belief in the worship of humans, animals, governments, or gods should not take precedence over the freedom of the individual. Unfortunately, that world doesn't exist. I don't think that man ever will have the capacity to coexist in total peace, but it does not mean that peace shouldn't be a goal.

In America, the people have lost control of their government through misplaced faith in the inherent goodness of the elected servant. The elected servant has become the neuvo-nobility and now demands the servitude of the governed. America is full of "empty suit, owned" politicians serving their own best interests. Whether a country is ruled by the secular or the religious, power becomes an addicting opiate which often facillitates the oppression of the masses that are ruled over. All forms of government are fine for a season, and may continue to be workable for an exended period, as long as they don't oppress their own or others.

If someone's worldview is to be of the "overlord" class, then I think that there is a problem. What they call themselves really has no bearing on the targets of their oppression. The oppressed really won't be boasting that their oppression is better than the oppression of others. And one overlord won't be that much better than another. Some "ism's" worldviews have never changed. All should be skeptical of that fact.

[andak01]

I would reserve my judgement on the unique worldview of each person. If one's worldview is based upon violence and conquest above all other virtues, then I would be opposed to such tyranny.

My worldview is based on violence and conquest. I'm American aren't I?

If one's worldview takes on a live and let live philosophy, then I would lean towards accepting anyone with such leanings. There are certain crimes that would be detestable in all regions of the planet, and should not be allowed, no matter what the customs or the mores of the individual person.

I agree. How about we start with torture? Then we can move on to causing famine with economic sanctions.

The belief in the worship of humans, animals, governments, or gods should not take precedence over the freedom of the individual.

How about the willingness to spill any amount of blood in order to create a totally secular world.

Unfortunately, that world doesn't exist. I don't think that man ever will have the capacity to coexist in total peace, but it does not mean that peace shouldn't be a goal.

Look around you on this forum. How many do you think agree with peace as a goal other than mere words or peace arrived at by invasion.

If someone's worldview is to be of the "overlord" class, then I think that there is a problem. What they call themselves really has no bearing on the targets of their oppression.

I disagree. While they are waterboarding citizens, they should wrap themselves in the cloak of compassionate conservatism.

[varian]

If you are trying to infer that the history of the US is far more violent than the history of Islam, then I would have to disagree. I see the "radical Muslims" following their leader more closely than most Americans follow their leaders. Muhammad was a bloody fellow and Islam didn't really take off in the absence of conquest. America was founded on blood as well, and just like Islam, America shall forever be hopelessly embroiled in conflicts of blood. The real difference is that America had many "founders" to pick from and follow, and Americans were warned by some of those founders not to get embroiled in foreign affairs; but alas we have this legacy of blood. You may deride America for all its sins, but unlike Islam, the US has helped facilitate a lasting peace that has affected more people in the past; whereas Islam has wrought an additional 1000 years or so of bloodshed and discrimination to the planet with very little peace of mind or freedom of speech. No man made "ism" is without flaw; neither secular nor religious. I view your historical views of America and Islam as biased and jaded. Freedom of speech allows such!!!

[Achihud]

Well, there are also caves in gold, no doubt. (Apk 3:17-18)

99% of us and better do live and let live. It doesn't take millions of spectacular displays of violence to smear the rest of us, particularly when that's what you're looking to do. Enjoy your little hate fest and keep pretending that we all live in caves, don't have any money or any brains.

How does “live and let live” translate itself into the concept of dhimmitude while remaining UNtouched (let alone, totally perversed) that was the question. Yet for bringing up this logical question according to you, it could only mean that I’m having a hate fest?!?

Here’s a peculiar thing; everytime you run out of options in defending islam, you blame the other for your incompetence.

[Rob]

99% of us and better do live and let live.

OMG! Here you show you have absolutely no idea what goes on and you know nothing about Islam! That´s right you know nothing about Islam! You live in your own little Disneyland!

[andak01]

If you are trying to infer that the history of the US is far more violent than the history of Islam, then I would have to disagree.

You'll have to do that simply by ignoring actual history. George Bush ordered more executions than Muhammad (SAW), sent out more armies, presided over more killings, torture, false arrests and criminal behavior than all the Muslims from the birth of the Prophet until his death. And he did it in a fraction of the time.

I see the "radical Muslims" following their leader more closely than most Americans follow their leaders. Muhammad was a bloody fellow and Islam didn't really take off in the absence of conquest.

He wasn't particularly bloody in his own day and he isn't in ours.

You may deride America for all its sins, but unlike Islam, the US has helped facilitate a lasting peace that has affected more people in the past; whereas Islam has wrought an additional 1000 years or so of bloodshed and discrimination to the planet with very little peace of mind or freedom of speech.

Gosh, you're so right. Why if I ignore what - The Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc. and focus only on what the Ottomans did, I can see how uniquely violent they were. If I ignore the pogroms of Russia, the medieval pogroms of France and England and Spain that drove the Jews into the Muslim lands, I can see how bad they were. They killed 6 million Jews and 8 million Ukrainians...Oops. That wasn't the Muslims, was it?

No man made "ism" is without flaw; neither secular nor religious. I view your historical views of America and Islam as biased and jaded. Freedom of speech allows such!!!

Let me remind you that, unlike Jefferson, Muhammad (SAW) publicly told others to free slaves and did so himself publicly on several occasions. Jefferson was complicit in the "Trail of Tears", a death march for the Cherokee that cost many, many more lives than the execution of the Banu Quraizah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

Of course, that's just the secular side of things. What the cross bearing Spaniards did in South America and Mexico is even worse with forced conversions and massacres.

And as recently as Rwanda, ministers were preaching genocide from the pulpit. But none of that or non-Muslim aggression or imperialism even exists in your pristine, stilted history, your filthy propaganda.

What a refreshing ablution it is to know that all the sins of my Christian American family, the slaves, the ethnic cleansing, the support for genocidal dictators, all is forgiven if only I condemn the crimes of the Muslim and pretend none of that other stuff ever happened! If only I buy into your Disney version of history and pretend that we didn't drop flaming gasolene on villages in Southeast Asia or bomb dams in Korea or torture people in secret prisons, all is forgiven. All I have to do is say 2 + 2 = 5, Muslims are the worst folk in all of history, Jews and Christians and Atheists are compassionate as they spend trillions devising the best ways of separating sons from their mothers. British, who strap Indians to cannon and blow them to pieces are civilized but the victims are barbarians. Americans who sing "nits make gnats" while slaughtering pregnant Indian women are civilized and their victims are barbarians. Forcing people to live in caves to avoid aireal bombardment is civilized, running from bombs and avoiding landmines is barbarian. Invading a country is compassionate. Defending it is terrorism. I almost understand. 2 + 2 = 5.