mountainman

Dont most people with common sense understand the process of monopolies? It seems to be a natural pathway of business endeavours. A monopoly is of course greatly augmented with the use of the military machine, especially in the removal of opponents and the establishment of law and order. Monotheistic religious monopolies were good for all sorts of businesses.

Doug Shaver

I cannot begin to guess what you would regard as common sense.

What seems natural is not necessarily what is smart. Of course entrepreneurs in general prefer to have no competition. That doesn't make them evil. It makes them short-sighted.

sotto voce

Islam, an entirely fictitious concept, was established by force, its sole aim the slaughter of Christians, or those claiming to be Christians.

Elsewhere, Christianity was destroyed in like manner by people claiming to be Christians, supplanting it with what they claimed to be Christianity. These people simply murdered any who dared disagree with them, which by itself showed that their religion was fundamentally opposed to Christianity. Their obvious falsity, that was everywhere declared obvious falsity when the power to murder dissenters was lost, is still widely described as Christianity. The contrast between the real and the false is so immense that this anomalous practice must be counted a remarkable phenomenon in the fair-minded, humane, supposedly sophisticated and politically correct, modern age.

tanya

But, isn't that a history in common, widespread, across many religions, many geographic terrains, many ethnicities?

Your sentence above, here, to be properly understood, requires a brief explanation, perhaps as little as one sentence, defining the nature of a "true" Christian. Obviously, if someone, as above, claims to be a Christian, that is insufficient. Then, what is required to belong to that elite group of "genuine" Christians.

I would argue that Calvin and Luther, as they murdered Michael Servetus by burning him alive, at the stake, in Geneva, thought of themselves, as genuine "Christians", as did the Catholics of that era, who were in competition with Luther and Calvin to capture and execute by burning alive, that heroic Spanish physician with the courage to oppose their "Christianity".

So, too, did Thomas More, think of himself as a genuine Christian, as he ordered the execution of sincere Christian Englishmen for printing the bible in English. Didn't those executed for printing and distributing the bible in English, think of themselves as genuine Christians, too, though, obviously they were disobeying the gospels, by failing to heed the pronouncements of the guardians of the doctrine. Does the bible teach "true Christians" to disobey the authority of the presbyters, and follow whichever inclination one may have, even if doing so threatens the stability of the congregation as a whole?

Throughout history, men and women claiming to be Christians in thought, word, and deed, have dishonoured the notion that Jesus was some kind of saintly Jew, who believed in turning the other cheek. But was he? Is that the complete picture of Jesus, portrayed in the Gospels? I have read, passages, in which the character of Jesus is NOT all that kindly, especially towards non-believers. So, please, share with us, your notion of what constitutes a genuine Christian, so that we may better interpret and comprehend what you mean, when you write:

The stories in the Quran, for example, Mohammed riding al buraq to Jerusalem from Mecca, in 17:1, are obviously fictitious. But, what is significant, to me, at least, is that Mohammed rode to Jerusalem, not to Damascus, or Constantinople, or Seleucia, or Persepolis. Why there, and not to Thebes, Memphis, Alexandria, or Cyrene? Why not Athens? Rome?

Jerusalem wasn't just a big city. It was the capital of Judaism. Islam is not at all fictitious as a concept. It is a methodical, well executed, deliberate distortion of Judaism. It is a reformed Judaism, changed with the ideas, aspirations, and modus vivendi of the Arabs in mind. In my opinion, Islam is much closer to Judaism, than is Christianity.

sotto voce

Why would it be? Massacre has been both religious, and non-religious, but it does not mean to say that all would commit massacre. Obviously not all massacre, or there would be no humanity left.

Why would you argue that? What evidence does anyone have about what anyone thought? What can be argued, what has been argued, is that Calvin and Luther taught the most horrifying heresies, and self-contradictions, moreover. People moved on from them, as indeed they had to, because Calvin and Luther were only 'Catholic-lite'. They could well be described as agents of damage limitation on the part of Catholicism.

Did he? Some would say that More, along with the brutal Establishment of which he was a part, hated and feared Christians. Some would say that he should have burned in public; to make things fair.

So what were Catholics doing who afterwards opposed the guardians of the doctrine? Were they not disobeying the gospels? Or is there a God after all, and his Holy Vicar resides in the Vatican?

Presbyters were carried over from the synagogues, whose polity carried over from pre-monarchy Israel, when there was democracy. Elders/presbyters were merely the older men, who took decisions like a modern parliament. Presbyters in the synagogue had very limited jurisdiction, especially under the Romans. The whole point of Christianity vis-à-vis Mosaic Law, that 'schoolmaster', is that 'you do not need anyone to teach you'.

But Roman Catholic 'presbyters' could very justifiably have been burned, or hanged, drawn and quartered, and they could have had no complaint, as that was the measure they thought fit to dole out to others. Indeed, every Catholic should surely thank Protestants every day that he or she can draw breath.

The Bible teaches that a presbyter must be:

'above reproach, the husband of just one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect' (1 Ti 3:2-4).

Now that, as can be deduced from the NT, largely describes the desired state of all mature male Christians, that any congregation should expect of its men, and similarly of its women. It of course cuts out every Catholic and Orthodox cleric at a stroke, because even clerics who personally conform condone those many, popes and cardinals included, who have not, and abet those who do not conform, failing even to levels of horrible criminality.

Anyone who even suggests that Catholics can be Christian gets no admission among some who call themselves churches. Catholics are the ones who will not accept proper authority, in their view.

Presumably Gentiles are referred to here; there were many unbelieving Jews who were chided for lack of faith.

There is just one word of Jesus that is usually mentioned in this regard. It is translated as 'dogs', which is misleading, because another Greek word, translated the same way, was used pejoratively of false teachers- Jews, moreover! This word actually referred to family pets, and cannot be taken to mean an unkind attitude by Jesus. It is much more likely that he was testing the faith of an individual on a particular occasion, a nuance that many readers miss, perhaps. His overtly stated evaluation of Gentiles was very positive, and his following made no eventual distinction between Jew and Gentile.


It is worse than fictional. It would be suicidally comedic, if it were not so seriously taken. One cannot suppose that a 'Merciful, All-Wise' deity permitted egregious factual errors to be passed on as Holy Writ for between 600 and 1600 years before making correction. And correction then, to a single, secluded person without public witnesses, who promptly lost the dictation. It's farcical. A deity of that nature would be a liability. Nobody actually believes in it. It's plainly fiction. The Qur'an would have been the first novel, not Pilgrim's Progress, had it been admitted to be fiction! It's only 'theological' distinctive is that Jesus did not die after all. Plainly, opposition to Christians, as soon borne out by Muslims bearing scimitars.

Net2004

the way to TEST SOMEONES faith ACCORDING TO jezus christ



“IT IS NOT GOOD TO TAKE THE childrens bread and to cast it to dogs”

okay, what is the difference between an ILL GENTILE girl/dog/LITTLE bit ch and an ILL JEWISH girl? what is the difference? jesus called the womans ILL DAUGHTER a dog, he ,in his own words, did not want to help her.


`I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’

1. jesus IGNORES A desperate WOMAN LOOKING for help for her daughter “but he ANSWERED HER not a word”
2.the woman ASKS jesus' deciples to mediate on her behalf, they follow jesus' way to test faith

” SEND HER AWAY , SHE CRIETH AFTER US”

so jesus ignores her and we don't know how many times the deciples were asked by the woman to mediate on her behalf.

jesus in reply to his deciples,

`I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’


jesus wanted to help those who used gentile pagan pilate to screw, blue and tatoo him.
jesus doesn't want to help a desperate mother who is looking for a cure for her ILL GENTILE daughter because according to jesus it is NOT GOOD (bad)TO give the childrens bread to the LAWLESS DOGs .

jesus never partyed with the gentiles on the same table.

the woman gets down on her knees
” PLEASE help me…”


the god in flesh breaks his silence and addresses the woman

“IT IS NOT GOOD TO TAKE THE childrens bread and to cast it to dogs”


uneighbourly and incompassionate. you see , this is jesus' way to test someones faith.

the woman obsorbed jesus' abuse and delivered a knock out punch .

“Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!”



all jesus had to do was use his common sense and realise that his reply was amunition for the gentile woman .bread bits naturally fall to the floor, jesus didn't know that.
CHildren learn table manners later in life

” a Canaanitess, from those borders having come forth, did call to him, saying, `DEAL KINDLY with me,”


lol, we saw HOW much "deal kindly" she received from jesus and his deciples. you see, it is jesus' way to test the womans faith.

only when she came out with a CLEVER SAYING she was able to get a cure for her daughter.jesus opened his mouth and the devil left her daughter.jesus also opened his mouth and cursed an innocent and harmless tree because it didn't produce figs in the WRONG season. maybe jesus was NOT CLEVER enough to understand her clever rebuttal, he thought that she believed him/had faith that she and her ill daughter and her ppl were dogs UNDER the table near the childrens feet?


equal rights didn't exist in jesus' time , did you know that?


some quotes on what others think about jesus' method on testing ppls faith


taken from:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hoenician.html

my comment: what does a gentile ill little girl who is possessed know about what is holy?

Pamela Spencer

Was Muhammad a Warlord?

In the following exposition, we will examine contextual facts and character attributes regarding Muhammad's alleged role as a warlord-prophet.

According to Mahatma Gandhi (a personage often hailed as an emissary of peace by the West):

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.

[Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924]


622 marks the year of the Hijra ("The Exodus"), where Muhammad and his fledgling, infant community of "Mushlamim" משלמי was forced to exile due to an ongoing, persistent campaign to assassinate the prophet. However, the struggling community of Muslims was no stranger to persecution (escalation of the following injustices and violent persecution catalyzed the emigration of the Muslims from Mecca to Medina). Examples of hostilities and ill-intentioned Quraishi aggression aimed at the Muslims include, but are not limited to:

-"The first person to die by this means was a Muslim women by the name Umm Ammar" (physically restrained to her home and publicly humiliated by the Quraishi)

-"A muslim man Bilal was laid flat on his back on hot sand. A hot heavy stone was placed on his chest and he was beaten while his hands were tied behind his back."

-"A muslim man Usman was tied up with ropes by his uncle and beaten and tortured."

-"Abu Jahl beated a muslim woman Zaeerah in such a way that she became totally blind."

-"A muslim man Khabbab-bin-Aett was pushed into a fire."

-"One day Abu Jahl, an enemy of Islam, attacked Prophet Muhammad while he was resting near the hills of Safaa. Abu Jahl threw a stone and wounded him on his head. Muhammad went home bleeding a lot"

-"When the persecution became unbearable for most Muslims, the Prophet advised them in the fifth year of his mission (615 CE) to emigrate to Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) where Ashabah (Negus, a Christian) was the ruler. Eighty people, emigrated in small groups to avoid detection....The emigrants were allowed freedom of worship in Abyssinia."

-"The crowd (Taif) pelted them with pebbles and stones and he (Muhammad) was bleeding so much that the blood from his body ran down into his shoes and covered his feet".

http://www.prophetofislam.net/prophe...e_tortured.htm

However, the emigration to Yathrib (Medina) marked a new chapter in the history and development of Islam. Muhammad maintained friendly relations with adjacent tribes while the Muhajirs (refugees) and the Ansars (helpers) thrived side by side in synergistic harmony. Muhammad also extended a diplomatic effort towards solidifying relations with three prevailing Jewish clans via terms of pact:

"1. The Muslims and the Jews shall live as one people.
2. Each one of the parties shall keep to its own faith.
3. In the event of a war with a third party,
each shall be bound to come to the assistance of the other,
provided the party at war were not the aggressors.
4. In the event of an attack on Medina, both shall join hands to defend it.
5. Peace shall be made after consultation with each other.
6. Medina shall be regarded as sacred by both, all bloodshed being forbidden therein."

http://www.mountainman.com.au/islam_2.html

Battle of Badr

However, the conditions that once safeguarded the Muslims at Medina became threatened again via Quraishi invasions aimed at uprooting the emergent community. Divine instruction mandated that "the sword, he was told, would be taken up against him and he would have to fight to save the small community of Islam from destruction at the hands of a powerful enemy who was determined to uproot Islam from the soil of Arabia. Temperamentally Muhammad was not inclined to war; he had not once handled the sword in actual fighting up to the fifty-fifth year of his age, and this in a country where, owing to constant internecine warfare, fighting had become a vocation of the people." The prophet mustered an army of 313 "ill-equipped men" against "1,000 veteran warriors". Despite abysmal numbers, the Muslims proceeded to win the battle of Badr.

Battle of the Trench (Ghazwah al-Khandaq)

The battle began on March 31, 627, and the staggering odds of winning appeared to be stacked up against the 3,000 Medinan defenders (the Quraishi invaders numbered 10,000 men with roughly 600 horses). However, the Muslims (as well as the partaking Jewish tribes) were able to strategically defeat the Quraishi aggressors by digging a massive trench under Muhammad's instructions. The Muslims proceeded to win the battle of the Trench (Ghazwah al-Khandaq).

A few questions must be asked, namely:

Who taught Muhammad how to build a trench?

Why would Muhammad engage in a battle tactic (i.e digging of the trench) that has historically never been employed by the Arabs?

The Art of War

There was a particular element of ethical and principled conduct that Muslims were expected to adhere to during times of war:

-Women and children can not be attacked under any conditions
-Monks and messengers can not be assaulted under any conditions
-Deforestation is not permissible
-Mutilation/humiliation of the dead is not permissible
-Death via fiery means is never allowed
-Religious institutions, temples, churches, mosques and synagogues must be safeguarded

Prophetic Mission

It appears that Muhammad displayed a deeply sincere conviction in the nature of his mission. According to the hadith literature:

"We respect your age and rank, but we have no further patience with your nephew. Stop him or we shall fight you." Abu Talib asked Muhammad for his decision. With tears in his eyes, the Apostle firmly replied, "O my uncle! If they place the sun on my right hand and the moon on my left, to force me to renounce my mission, I will not desist until God manifests His cause or I perish in the attempt."

"....Not being able to prevail upon Abu Talib, the head of the Hashimites (the Prophet's family), to hand the Prophet over to them to end his life, and failing to tempt the Prophet by offering him kingship, wealth and beauty, they at last entered into a league and shut up the Hashimites and the Muslims in a small quarter, where they suffered the utmost privations for three long years, being allowed liberty of action only during the time of pilgrimage. These three years were the years of the hardest suffering for the Muslims, and Islam itself made little progress during this time....."

http://www.mountainman.com.au/islam_1.html


We must pause for a second, and ask ourselves the following questions:

If Muhammad was truly a power-hungry warlord, why did he reject the Hashemite offering of Kingship over Arabia, as well as his selection of any wives from among the Arabs? Why did Muhammad choose difficulty and hardship over promised success?

Conquest of Mecca

When Muhammad finally secured an army of "10,000 saints", the prophet garnered enough strength to return to his homeland, Mecca/Bacca.

So what did Muhammad do when the entire city of Mecca was clearly at his mercy? Did he enslave the populace, slaughter the belligerent tribes or partake in exacting, incalculable revenge for threatening his developing community?

Nope, It appears that Muhammad pronounced a general amnesty for the entire population of Mecca!!

[According to Deedat]:

Calling before the populace of the vanquished city, he addressed them, "What do you expect at my hands today"? His people had known him too well, even from childhood so they replied, "Mercy, O generous brother and nephew" Tears came into the eyes of the Prophet, and he said, "I will speak to you as Joseph spoke unto his brethren, I will not reproach you today: go you are free!"

And now a scene enacted as there is really no parallel in the history of the world. Hosts upon hosts came forward and adopted the religion of Islam.

Genocide of Jewish Tribe of Banu Qurayzah

The Jewish-Muslim movement that was once known by the name "Jews-for-Allah" vehemently denies the controversial story regarding the Jewish Tribe of Banu Qurayzah, altogether. Prominent Jewish scholars also maintain that the story, was in fact, entirely fabricated--In particular, Mikhah Ben David states that the concocted story was revived as "an emerging reaction to Jewish Messianism under the Abbāsid Caliphate" due to deteriorating attitude toward the Jews, post-Muhammad. Mikhah Ben David is the author of the book, "Unraveling the Myth of the Banu Qurayzah: The Origins of the Islamicate Genocide".

Post-Muhammad

It's actually extremely surprising that Islam השלמה was even able to survive considering the constant barrage of external threats and zealous persecutions. Islam was at the brink of extinction during the time of Muhammad, and almost became exterminated altogether during the Battle of Karbala (post-Muhammad). 11 out of 12 Imams of Shiism were all poisoned to death (that's the equivalent of 11 generations!). Muhammad's grandson Hasan was also poisoned to death. Muhammad's 2nd grandson, Hussein was chopped up into pieces and decapitated.



"If Hussein fought to quench his worldly desires, (as alleged by certain Christian critics) then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore that he sacrificed purely for Islam"- Charles Dickens

"In a distant age and climate, the tragic scene of the death of Hussein will awaken the sympathy of the coldest reader."- Edward Gibbons

[Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870, p. 54.]

"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports."

mountainman

Irrespective of whether Christianity is or is not an entirely ficititious concept, it was established under Constantine by force, its sole aim the slaughter of Pagans, or of those claiming to Pagans ....

mountainman

In this case the entrepreneurs are victorious warlords with an entire empire at their disposal.

I have not attempted to claim that Constantine or Muhammad (or Ardashir) are either good or evil. Neither short or long sighted.

The claims are that 1) they were all supreme military commanders of their respective empires; that 2) during this supremacy they each implemented centralized monotheistic state religions; and 3) that these religions were characterized by the "canonization" of a "Holy Writ".

sotto voce

Very good. Nothing like the tongue in cheek approach to lighten the thread up a bit.

It gets better.

:hysterical:

Bob Hope lives.

Thank you.