Faith Freedom International :: View topic - Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> [Archived] Comments on the Articles Posted in the Main Site

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Bam

Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 137

Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 9:27 pm Post subject:

piggy wrote:

Jesus never had a sword nor did he or any of his immediate followers use one

In preparation for the final putsch against the Romans, Jesus told his disciples:
And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one (Luke 22:36).
Additionally, Peter cut off a slave's ear with a sword when Jesus was arrested at Gethsmane (John 18:10).

piggy wrote:

So he (Jesus) made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple...(John 2:15).

I don't see any mention of flogging, you are making up more fairy-tales

.
Then what was the whip for?

piggy wrote:

Bam wrote:

Furthermore Jesus fully endorsed the brutal barbaric Mosaic laws and insisted that not even a dot should be changed (Mathew 5:17-19).
In order words if Jesus..would have behaved exactly like Moses who perpetrated genocide against the Canaanites; executed a man for fetching firewood on sabbath and stoned to death disobedient children - a la Mosaic law.

"IF" this, and "HAD HE" that, "WOULD HAVE" this, and "FULLY ENDORSED" that.....you are speculating and making up your own fairy-tales

Common Piggy. This is common sense and simple deductive reasoning.
If Jesus fully endorsed and insisted on unmodified Mosaic law, then its stands to reason that he would have fully implemented them if he had the opportunity.
Similarly several members of this forum have villified moderate Muslims for not condeming Islamic terror, stating that this implies tacit endorsement of Islamic terror.

piggy wrote:

Where did "social havoc" come from?.....what's it got to do with the issue?

What do you call a situation in society where children rebell against their parents as Jesus incited them in Mathew 10:34-35 ? He further added that a man will not be secure even in his own home - A man's enemies will be members of his family (Mathew 10:36).

piggy wrote:

Remember the verse about Jesus stepping-in when some people were going to stone a woman to death?

Remember when hungry Jesus cursed an innocent fig tree for not bearing fruit when it wasn't even fig season (Mark 11:12-14)? Only a fool would expect a tree to bear fruit outside its season.

piggy wrote:

None of the Commandments call for cruelty or punishment

Really? Then you don't know your bible and have no business defending what you don't know. Moses executed a man for fetching firewood on Sabbath. Disobedient children (didn't honour their parents) were stoned to death (Deut 21:18-21).
And how about graven images? Moses ordered the massacre of 3000 people because of the golden calf (Exodus 32:2

. Interestingly he spared his cousin Aaron who built the calf for them (Exodus 32:3-4).
This is the kind of wicked brutality that Jesus endorsed when he said he wouldn't change even a dot (Mathew 5:17).

piggy wrote:

Where is your evidence of his "bid for power"?

Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be king of the Jews:
Pontius Pilate asked: "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so." (Mathew 27:11, Mark 15:2).
Note that Jesus did not deny the allegation.
Other extra-biblical records such as Joesphus (Jewish historian) document that Jesus was executed for rebelling against Roman rule. Under Roman law crucifixtion was reserved for rebellious treason.
Jesus rebelled against Roman occupation of Palestine to free his people, and then be crowned King of the Jews.
Although the Gospels were written by followers of Jesus, and thus cannot be considered an objective, reliable, unbiased account of Jesus, his violent quest for power is evident between the lines of the Gospels.
It was during this quest for power that Jesus made that revealing statement in the Parable of ten Minas:

Those my enemies, who do not want me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them before me (Luke 19:27).

I shall now prove that the violent quest for power evident in this verse of Jesus's Parable referred to Jesus himself.
It is instructive that Jesus narrated this parable immediately prior to his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:11) where there was a grand reception to proclaim his kingdom - Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna (Mark 11:10); Hosanna to the Son of David (Mathew 21:15).
Immediately after narrating this parable, already behaving like a king, he impetuously orders his disciples to commandeer from the village a donkey / colt that neither belonged to him nor his disciples (Luke 19:30-31).
The donkey was for the triumphant entry of "king" Jesus into Jerusalem.

Lets analyse your revealing quote in the enlightening verses preceding Jesus' violent outburst in Luke 19:27:
A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king...But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king (Luke 19:12-14).
A man of noble birth - house of David or Yahweh
From a distant country - heaven to earth
Appointed himself king - He claimed to be king of the Jews (Mathew 27:11, Mark 15:2).
His subjects (Jews) rejected him - According to your Gospels, the Jews not only rejected him but demanded for his execution (crucifixtion).
He (Jesus) came unto his own (Jews) and his own people rejected him (John 1:11).
One doesn't need to be a bible theologian to see that the king of noble birth in Luke 19:12 is Jesus. And this same rejected "king" (Jesus) soon declared:
Those my enemies, who do not want me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them before me (Luke 19:27).

piggy

Joined: 13 Feb 2004
Posts: 6372
Location: Godwana

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:50 am Post subject:

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

Jesus never had a sword nor did he or any of his immediate followers use one

What "final push against the Romans"?

You keep repeating these invented claims of yours as if it will make them true.........pathetic.

You have not yet established that there was a take-over attempt or a final push, yet you persist in attempting to build an argument based on your own fairy-tales.

*You still haven't provided any valid evidence that supports your claim that the "sword" as mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 10:34 meant a weapon.

*You still have not provided any valid evidence that Jesus sought to overthrow the Romans.

* You still have not provided any valid evidence to support your claim that Jesus flogged people in the temple.

* You still have not provided any valid evidence to support your claim that Jesus called for violence and harm toward others.

I could probably cite more of your absurd claims, but I will not spend anymore time on this.

You are making these absurd claims and the onus of proof rests with you.

So far you have not proven a single claim and in fact you have invented events that clearly did not happen.

Luke 22:35 - 22:36

35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

My comment:

22:35.............at other times when you had no valuable possessions did you lack anything?.....they answered no.

22:36............but now days, and considering where they were going to, if you have valuable possessions you may need to protect them and defend yourselves.

Jesus knew that he was going to a place that would have a dubious reception waiting, knowing that he might face arrest, he knew that his followers would be targets and may have to protect their valuable and fight for their lives, something which he, himself saw no need to do.

He did not want or expect his followers to die for him, they had the important job of continuing the mission.

Now to John 18:10

Why did you leave out the following verse John 18:11 Bam?

Was it because it did not suit your warped intentions?

John 18:10 - John 18:11
(also with the preceding verses, to put things in perspective)

Jesus Arrested

1 When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was an olive grove, and he and his disciples went into it. [side note: notice no group, ritual prayer]

2 Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples.

3 So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"

5 "Jesus of Nazareth," they replied.

6 "I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?"
And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."

8 "I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)

[here's the verse that you conveniently left out Bam]

11 Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

piggy wrote:

So he (Jesus) made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple...(John 2:15).

I don't see any mention of flogging, you are making up more fairy-tales

Bam wrote:

Then what was the whip for?

To crack and make a noise, to get attention, to drive the animals out, to express anger.

YOU said he flogged people.....you made this up.

bam wrote:

Notice how Jesus flogged people in temple

bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

Bam wrote:

"IF" this, and "HAD HE" that, "WOULD HAVE" this, and "FULLY ENDORSED" that.....you are speculating and making up your own fairy-tales

Common-sense?.........more like common accusations and slander of a person's character, based on a biased, opinionated, invented nonsense.

You have not provided any valid evidence that "Jesus fully endorsed and insisted on unmodified Mosaic law".

What Jesus called "law" and what others called the "law" are not necessarily the same, in fact I am convinced of this.

Jesus spoke of law to mean the Commandments, others spoke of law as Commandments+cruel punishments, and again I remind you of the stoning incident.

Can you get your head around the fact that Jesus agreed with the ten commandments, but did not agree with the ruling law-makers and penal-system of the day?

Bam wrote:

Similarly several members of this forum have villified moderate Muslims for not condeming Islamic terror, stating that this implies tacit endorsement of Islamic terror.

??????????????

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

Where did "social havoc" come from?.....what's it got to do with the issue?

This has already been addressed and explained, you are flogging a dead-horse.

You have not proven that Jesus incited children to do anything, let alone rebel against their parents!

You do know that Matthew 10 is about Jesus talking exclusively to his disciples?............no children there!

You keep inventing new opinionated absurd claims, then base your argument on them.

bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

Remember the verse about Jesus stepping-in when some people were going to stone a woman to death?

Remember when hungry Jesus cursed an innocent fig tree for not bearing fruit when it wasn't even fig season (Mark 11:12-14)? Only a fool would expect a tree to bear fruit outside its season.

What has the verse about a fig tree got to do with Jesus defending a person persecuted under the cruel laws?

YOU ARE DESPERATE!

OK let's look at it anyway, and see if your charge of "fool" is valid.

Mark 11:12 - 11:14

11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.

13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.

14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

My comments:
Oh, there's a fig tree, oh, it has leaves, even tho' it's not fruiting-season, there might be some fruit still on the tree, hidden by those leaves that no one has picked yet, I like dried figs, damn there's none there, Mr. Fig tree I hope no one ever eats fruit from you again, so there will be some for me next time we meet.

Such a bad, bad, violent Jesus.

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

None of the Commandments call for cruelty or punishment

Your right Bam, I don't usually read bibles, only recently since being on this forum and dealing with those who are on the let's-slander-jesus-brigade, have I found the need to refer to bible in order to address these biased, dishonest inventors of lies and expose their agenda.

What's more, in my opinion one of the only few good things that come out of the Old Testament are the Ten Commandments.

Please don't start with such crap as "have no business defending what you don't know."

I make it my business to address vicious liars and slanderers and expose them.

You have made all these absurd accusations and have not proven one of them, nor have you provided any evidence of any reasonable substance.

So far your biased, slanderous blurbs have been proven to be hot-air.

Bam wrote:

And how about graven images? Moses ordered the massacre of 3000 people because of the golden calf (Exodus 32:2

We are discussing Jesus, not Moses.

More desperation on your part Bam, and you are repeating the same 'ol same 'ol - claiming that Jesus endorsed things, but you still haven't proven it.

You have not provided any valid evidence that Jesus was talking about the penal-system of Moses or variations thereof, when he spoke of the "law".

I say, Ten Commandments was the law that Jesus supported and would not want changed, only to add "Love one another", in doing this subtly only giving acknowledgement to ten commandments.

If Jesus supported the cruel penal-laws, do you think he would have saved the woman from the stoning?....... he could have directly endorsed these cruel penal-laws when he had the opportunity, as you assert he would apply such laws given the opportunity if he over-threw the government and gained control.

Bam wrote:

piggy wrote:

Where is your evidence of his "bid for power"?

Note Jesus did not admit to it either............so what does that prove?

NOTHING!

It was his accusers who claimed the things that you assert Jesus claimed.

You can't even get this right.

Would you cite the evidence that leads you to assert that Jesus "claimed to be king of the Jews"?

In fact there is no substantial evidence that gives credence to the assertion that Jesus claimed to be God or the only son of god, except for some claims made by zealous christians in an endeavour to put him on a pedestal and attribute a quality of divinity.

Bam wrote:

Other extra-biblical records such as Joesphus (Jewish historian) document that Jesus was executed for rebelling against Roman rule. Under Roman law crucifixtion was reserved for rebellious treason.
Jesus rebelled against Roman occupation of Palestine to free his people, and then be crowned King of the Jews.

Cite the evidence, as you have proven so far to be unreliable due to your bias, fabrications and absurd, invented claims, reference to the text you rely upon is necessary.

Verbal rebellion is a far cry from physical rebellious attempts to over-throw the government, but you would have people to believe otherwise, with your invented claims of Jesus promoting violence, anarchy, social havoc, etc.

bam wrote:

Although the Gospels were written by followers of Jesus, and thus cannot be considered an objective, reliable, unbiased account of Jesus, his violent quest for power is evident between the lines of the Gospels.
It was during this quest for power that Jesus made that revealing statement in the Parable of ten Minas:

Those my enemies, who do not want me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them before me (Luke 19:27).

You rely on the reports of the gospel writers when it suits your slander agenda, then you about-face when it goes against your argument...yeah right!

So you are the one to be relied on then?

Bam wrote:

I shall now prove that the violent quest for power evident in this verse of Jesus's Parable referred to Jesus himself.
It is instructive that Jesus narrated this parable immediately prior to his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:11) where there was a grand reception to proclaim his kingdom - Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna (Mark 11:10); Hosanna to the Son of David (Mathew 21:15).
Immediately after narrating this parable, already behaving like a king, he impetuously orders his disciples to commandeer from the village a donkey / colt that neither belonged to him nor his disciples (Luke 19:30-31).
The donkey was for the triumphant entry of "king" Jesus into Jerusalem.

What "triumphant" entry into Jerusalem?

Luke 19:11

11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

It has already been pointed out what Jesus had to say about the "kingdom", here, I will remind you:

Quote:

Luke 17:20 - 17:21

20 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation,

21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Yeah right "triumphant".

"Grand reception"?...cite the evidence, only a fool would rely upon your invented claims......cite the evidence.

Mark 11:10

10 "Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!"
"Hosanna in the highest!"
Note: "Hossana" - A Hebrew expression meaning "Save!"

So what's you point Bam?........you ARE desperate.

There is still no substantial evidence or proof of your absurd claims of inciting violence, use of weapons, inciting harm, inciting social havoc, etc. you are clutching at straws, and as you say "reading between the lines" things that you PREFER or WANT to believe.

Your judgements are based on flimsy, vague notions and have little if any weight as compared to the weight of evidence that is clearly contrary to the exaggerated, invented and/or imagined events you say took place.

Matthew 21:4 - 21:5

4 This took place to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet:

5 "Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "

My comment:

A comment by Matthew, not the words of Jesus.

Jesus had no control over what people would say about him, nor any control over how others might like to associate him with earlier scriptures.

Thus once again Jesus did not say he was the coming king, nor did he say he was the king of the Jews.

Bam wrote:

Immediately after narrating this parable, already behaving like a king, he impetuously orders his disciples to commandeer from the village a donkey / colt that neither belonged to him nor his disciples (Luke 19:30-31).
The donkey was for the triumphant entry of "king" Jesus into Jerusalem

"behaving like a king"....your invented opinion, nothing more.

"impetuously" - ditto.

"commandeer" - ditto

Luke 19:30 - 19:31

30 "Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.

31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it.' "

and............it is clear he only borrowed the animals, as the people were satisfied to allow the disciples to use the horse based on the condition that they would be returned.

Mark 11:1 - 11:7

1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples,

2 saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.

3 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "

4 They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it,

5 some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?"

6 They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go.

7 When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.

bam wrote:

Lets analyse your revealing quote in the enlightening verses preceding Jesus' violent outburst in Luke 19:27:
A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king...But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king (Luke 19:12-14).

"violent outburst" - your invention Bam.

bam wrote:

A man of noble birth - house of David or Yahweh
From a distant country - heaven to earth
Appointed himself king - He claimed to be king of the Jews (Mathew 27:11, Mark 15:2).

Where did Jesus claim to be of "noble birth"?...........your invention again?

Where did Jesus claim to come from "heaven to earth"?.....more of your inventions?

Where did Jesus say that he "appointed himself king"........more inventions Bam?

OK, now Matthew 27:11 (NIV)

11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.

12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer.

13 Then Pilate asked him, "Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?"

14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor.

compared to Matthew 27:11 - 14 (King James)

11 Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "You have said so."

12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer.

13 Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?"

14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge; so that the governor wondered greatly.

My comment:

Conflicting reports, hardly reliable, one way or the other on this one singular point.......but your bias is obvious.

bam wrote:

His subjects (Jews) rejected him - According to your Gospels, the Jews not only rejected him but demanded for his execution (crucifixtion).
He (Jesus) came unto his own (Jews) and his own people rejected him (John 1:11).

You claim the Jews were his "subjects" obviously based on your preference to assert that Jesus claimed to be king over them, yet you still have not provided sufficient valid evidence to prove that he considered himself to be the king of the Jews.

Btw, not my gospels.

John 1:11

11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

So?

All it says is that he was rejected, so how does this prove your absurd claims of Jesus promoting violence, over-throwing the Romans, inciting violence and harm, promoting using weapons, inciting social havoc?

bam wrote:

One doesn't need to be a bible theologian to see that the king of noble birth in Luke 19:12 is Jesus. And this same rejected "king" (Jesus) soon declared:
Those my enemies, who do not want me to rule over them, bring them here and kill them before me (Luke 19:27).

One does not need to be a scholar of any persuasion to see that you have an agenda to slander and make unsubstantiated accusations about a man to suit you own purposes, using the palfrey, twisted interpretations, exaggerations and invented conclusions that you have demonstrated.

As I have said before it appears you have a gripe with Christians and in a knee-jerk reaction you are attempting to defame the Christian role-model to vent your bitterness, using incredible, opiniated, twisted, exaggerated, invented terminology and labels that don't exist.

Bam, I am through with this lengthy exchange.

I am prepared to accept that Jesus was a revolutionary, but not in the sense that you attempt to portray, he was revolutionary in guiding people to reject the current standards that existed in his day, rather Jesus lead and promoted people to find their own individuality, observe humanitarian principles and cognize/relate with what they may conceive the creator/god to be in a one-on-one without third-party interference or influence.

Overall his message was to love fellow man using the principles of the Ten Commandments and the "golden rule" (as Ali and others describe) – “do unto others as you would have others do unto you"

lilith

Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:04 am Post subject:

Quote:

Surely for Fiamma Nirenstein “moderate Islam” means mainly the recognition of the State of Israel by all Islamic states and to stop Palestinian suicide bombers. For the west it means to defeat international terrorism, the Jihad. While for Muslims, “moderate Islam” means to reject Allah’s orders; in other words, to apostatise.

We allways considered the books to be old lore.
Only religious maniacs would take any word for real and act upon it. mostly causing themselves more harm then others.
Fine if they kept it like that.
But christians turned nasty and so did muslims.
Not acknowledging the laws(only God or Allah can judge me).
We even had a demonstration were an old man was stoned only because he was wearing a little cap.
So this religious state of affair comes down to lawlessness.
The contract social in between people has been breached.
So every religious person should be jailed, the moment they trangress and are found te be religious. That should weigh extra on their punishment.
Furthermore a study showed that religous people are more likely to be sex-offenders. So I see ample precedent for a heavier sentence, so as to keep society safe.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi

Barbaros

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 279
Location: Ergenekon

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:58 am Post subject: Re: Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

gupsfu wrote:

mehdi_t wrote:

Ali Sina wrote:

Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

The nuclear bomb is very modern. Should we have ones ?

Believe me, that will be your worst nightmare.

hahaha look what he said

Do you think that it will be good to use it on people ???i dont think so man...
You will die,so will i...
if it is with a nuclear bomb,that is OK for me...
But do not piss your pants because you are afraid of death...

if you have a nuclear bomb near you.USe it now if you want...if you do not have,i will give you a chance to kill 1 muslim.You will be less happy but 1 dead muslim is better than 0 dead muslim...

Should i give you my adress???

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

Barbaros wrote:

Should i give you my adress???

No thanks. I'd rather not deal with individuals who make no sense at all.
_________________
‌

Barbaros

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 279
Location: Ergenekon

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:12 pm Post subject:

You are welcome my afraid friend X

zer0degrees

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 1392
Location: Cosmic Castaway

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:15 pm Post subject: Re: Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

gupsfu wrote:

Barbaros wrote:

Should i give you my adress???

No thanks. I'd rather not deal with individuals who make no sense at all.

Its the full moon gupsfu. Brings out all the weirdos... i mean werewolves...
_________________
-0°

Cave ab homine unius libri

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:16 pm Post subject: Re: Moderanization: A western Dream and Ummah's Nightmare

zer0degrees wrote:

Its the full moon gupsfu. Brings out all the weirdos... i mean werewolves...

I know. They're quite annoying. :X
22 posts in less than a day, and counting ...
_________________
‌

Barbaros

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 279
Location: Ergenekon

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:31 pm Post subject:

Puhahahaha :-D

zer0degrees

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 1392
Location: Cosmic Castaway

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:48 pm Post subject:

Dogs and wolves are from the same family and as such can mate with each other. Keeping that in mind..... What is this guy thinking??? a Wolf avatar!! Does his Imam know about this??? _________________ -0° Cave ab homine unius libri

Barbaros

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 279
Location: Ergenekon

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:19 pm Post subject:

i have no IMAM and i could not understand why YOU say that i have an imam... :-D That did not make sense http://www.fotw.net/Flags/tr_imp1.html that will HELP

mehdi_t

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 738
Location: France

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:14 pm Post subject:

freeland wrote:

If they are "moderate" they are not muslim anymore. How long it will take untill people understand this?

The west is affraid of the moderate muslims. For it can't kill them. And we understand that. Let's just "make" kids as many as possible.

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 2:17 pm Post subject:

mehdi_t wrote:

The west is affraid of the moderate muslims. For it can't kill them. And we understand that. Let's just "make" kids as many as possible.

Moderate Muslims are potential apostates. That's what they will become.
_________________
‌

Jamuka

Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 683

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:00 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Moderate Muslims are potential apostates. That's what they will become.

You are obviously quite ignorant to how Muslims think. Live with Muslims and only then you will understand them. Ali Sina type debates and discussions will only work for a small minority but the majority will never leave Islam no matter how much proof you give them about their cult. Even Ali himself has agreed to this. Only through the threat of force that we may see a difference in their attitude. Until then they will procreate and reproduce like rats.
_________________
Why can't we all just get along?....Rodney King

gupsfu

Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919

Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 3:02 pm Post subject:

Jamuka wrote:

You are obviously quite ignorant to how Muslims think.

And you are obviously quite ignorant to what kind of discussion this gentleman and I were having.
_________________
‌

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> [Archived] Comments on the Articles Posted in the Main Site	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 3 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum