I had no idea you were so against Jews/Israel. It does put other things into perspective now. This is so revised from what happened that is beginning to sound like "abused spouse syndrome." Where the abused spouse always blames themself for the abuse dished out. By chance, are you a holocaust denier as well? The "Jews" did not evict Palestinians. As usual, I'll provide the sources to back up my arguments and put your myths to rest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel Incorrect. Let's source this revisionism and untruthful statement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel Palestinians were not ejected. They had a choice and easily could have stayed in Israel, or claimed their own state. In fact, some did stay in Israel, while many left to join invading armies under the notion that those invading Arab armies would defeat the newly formed Israel. They were wrong. Israel wiped them clean and like in virtually any war, advanced and claimed land, which was eventually given back. I'm well aware of the history, in it's entirety. You are not the first person to come along on DP to try and whitewash this history and portray a one-sided view of palestinian victimization at the expense of revisionism history. I suggest putting down the anti-Semite books of Dhimmi Carter and getting a fresh perspective on what really happened. "We" are not going to resolve anything involving a people whose religious ideology and teachings include forced hatred of Jews. The US is not an abused spouse who needs to keep making excuses and blaming herself for the abuse of others. All this self-loathing and self-blame is disingenuous. Leave the "battered wife syndrome" for the Dr. Phil show where it belongs. If you want investigations, let's investigate and hold responsible those who kidnapped citizens of Israel and started the war. Let's investigate those staged photo ops, those doctored photos, those flagrant biased news reports, the hiding behind women and children, the weapons smuggling from Iran to Syria into Lebanon. Let's investigate why hezbollah and hamas fired rockets into Israel with the sole intention of killing civilians, using ball bearing filled rockets. Let's investigate why neither warned Israeli citizens of such, in the same manner that Israel did.
Palestine has been a tool of proxy war, and the bordering states for quite a period of time tried to prevent a nation from evolving. Israel is not of pure blame on this...in fact to some level all I think they're doing is...well, trying to survive. Like a black man in a KKK rally...what would he do if he had a gun? What's being attempted in Iraq is similiar to what is happening in Palestine. Outside powers use the 'fodder' of the people in organizing powers among vacant structures. Instead of a clear and present war machine, they use a highly gorilla-like mao tactic. I'm not in Israel's shoes, so I can't say what I would do; but I understand their reasoning. They're neighbor have continually supported their destruction in the shadows, and they're sending a clear message that they will not be screwed with. Now personally, I think the initial war ended far too quickly. If you end a war too quickly, you prolong the resurgence of war. America did it right in World War II...we invaded the mainland, conquered the Germans back to Berlin, and weeded their whole institution out completely. Demoralizing any further efforts to start any sort of conflict. Maybe that's what should have been done. Same with Japan. Patience and full surrenders are always good for long-term security...both cases required a level of atrocities...in Japan and Germany.
You've failed to validate this allegation, despite having been asked for it. You also failed to address or even put into perspective hezbollah and hamas firing rockets into Israel with the sole intention of civilian casualties. But, as I'm starting to gain an understanding from your view through your volunteering information, they are "just Jews." Disproportionate? You're sounding just like the anti-Semitic media that started using such. As if, during a war, there is "one weapon for thee, one weapon for me." Damn right it was disproportionate and it should be! LMAO! Disproportionate! "Aww, the poor hezbollah terrorists tried, but they weren't smart enough to figure out how to accurately fire their rockets. They sure fired enough, but dog gone it, they just didn't kill enough Jews" Tell the people you are defending to stop hiding behind women, children and the UN. If they were not such cowards and came out to fight like real men in a war they started, instead of hiding amongst civilians, things would have been different. Got issues with those deaths? Blame hezbollah for being cowards and hiding amongst women and children. Israel took the high road here and informed them, yet we see how your biased views revise history. Like Dhimmi Carter, your response here seems to be that it's always the responsibility of everyone else to pursue the peace amongst savages. They don't want peace, KLB! They do not have the same pacifist mind set you do. They want death and destruction. Killing Jews is how they are guaranteed a place in heaven. Yes, shame Israel for allowing their civilians to be kidnapped. Battered wife syndrome. Saying it doesn't mean it happened. This was actually part of the staged photo ops and deliberate misreporting of the media. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22391_Fauxtography_Updates&only Do you feel any remorse for perpetuating events that didn't take place? Or, does only the message matter? What I didn't ignore, was the double statement, where you also noted, words to the affect "it's not fair that Israel has them and Iran shouldn't." Yes, indeed, I noted that weak thinking. Yes, always a but...but there is some self-loathing and way it's always our fault for other's actions. I can't fathom how someone lives with such a pacifist attitude. Most people that claim to care about them don't. Many simply use them as tools to portray Israel and/or the US as the reason for what they do. As in the case of this *debate* (more like whitewashing). I don't get the impression you care about Israel or the US in this debate. Well, other than to self-loathe on their behalf and paint a rosey picture of terrorists. There's always a "but, ...." If you want investigations, let's investigate and hold responsible those who kidnapped citizens of Israel and started the war. Let's investigate those staged photo ops, those doctored photos, those flagrant biased news reports, the hiding behind women and children, the weapons smuggling from Iran to Syria into Lebanon. Let's investigate why hezbollah and hamas fired rockets into Israel with the sole intention of killing civilians, using ball bearing filled rockets. Let's investigate why neither warned Israeli citizens of such, in the same manner that Israel did. Appeasement and battered spouse syndrome are not the answers.
I am not against Jews. I am against the way the Israeli state has been treating the Palestinians for forty or fifty years. There is a very major difference. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS! DON'T EVER TRY TO ACCUSE ME OF BEING AGAINST JEWS OR ANY OTHER RACE OR CULTURE OR TRY TO TWIST MY WORDS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I'M AGAINST A SPECIFIC GROUP LIKE THIS EVER AGAIN! THIS WAS A VILE AND UNCALLED FOR ATTACK ON ME PERSONALLY AND I AM EXTREMELY OFFENDED BY THE ACCUSATION! After this personal attack I will not read nor respond to any further of your posts until you publicly apologize. I would absolutely agree with this assessment and it was what I was trying to point out when I wrote about Israel playing into the hands of those who do not want to see peace with Israel. Agreed. I believe that invading Iraq was a tragic mistake on so many levels. Not the least of which is that it eliminated a major enemy of Iran and thus helped strengthen Iran tremendously and at the same time allowed Iran and other similarly minded forces to bog us down in Iraq. Look at what Iran is doing. They keep funding proxy wars so that they can work towards their ultimate objectives without having to spill the blood of their own people. They don't really care how many Palestinians die so long as it furthers their objective of wiping Israel of the face of the map. I understand the desire to show that they will not be screwed around with, but their invasion of Lebanon was extremely poorly executed and used weapons that should have never been used and that quite frankly should be outlawed by international conventions. This little venture this summer did nothing but kills countless civilians (maybe in the thousands); totally destabilize a strongly Christian Lebanese government who was weak already and struggling to establish itself against Syrian threats; prove that once again Israel has a habit of using disproportional force; and strengthened Hezbollah (because they did something all the Arab countries together could not do, survive a full out assault by Israel). I don't know their situation well enough to say what they could have or should of done, what I do know is that they should not have used cluster bombs and that if they were going to invade Lebanon they should have executed the invasion a heck of a lot better and done it without targeting humanitarian relief convoys by internationally recognized aid organizations. But don't you see, Iran wants Israel to invade its neighbors in this way. Israel is playing right into Iran's hands. No Iranians got killed in this operation but lots of innocent Lebanese were and Iran via Hezbollah was able to pump millions of dollars of reconstruction and relief aid into Southern Lebanon immediately after Israel pulled back. All this has done is improve Iran's position in the Middle East and made Hezbollah look like heroes for simply surviving the best that Israel could dish out. I don't think WWII is a good comparison in this situation. The dynamics and scale are completely different. Plus WWII was not a proxy war unlike what we see Iran conducting. Now my reasons I think we should hold talks with Iran and Syria is that this could be the best way to call their bluffs about being willing to hold talks. We can not beat them in the field of public opinion as long as they are able to bluff about how willing they are to be constructive partners while undermining everything via their proxy agents. We need to find ways to shift the burden of finding solutions onto their shoulders such that either they start resolving the problems or they start losing face in the Arab world. People should remember that Iran is NOT an Arab country and in many ways Iranians are the out casts of the Islamic world (kind of like Mormons vs. mainstream Christians). We should also remember that Iran is not only the world's oldest continuous civilization, but they were also the world's first superpower as the Persian Empire. The 20th century marked a very serious downturn of fortunes for Iran mostly at the hands of foreign powers (e.g. the puppet government of the Shaw of Iran). Iran quite literally was on the brink of ceasing to exist. What we see now is Iran trying to reemerge as a world power in a neighborhood where everyone is their enemy. To their North the Tellaban wanted to do them in, to their East Pakistan supported the Tellaban, to their West Sadam wanted their oil. Everywhere else in the Middle East did not respect Iran because 1) they were in decline and 2) they are not Arabs. Fighting Israel via proxy wars is a terrific way (in their eyes) for Iran to exert power and gain respect from their Arab neighbors especially now that we eliminated the biggest threats Iran faced in the form of the Tellaban in Afghanistan and Sadam in Iraq. As their "enemy" the U.S. has done more to strengthen Iran's position in the world than any friend could have.
I'd like to think I would do things differently if I was in control of Israel...but who knows, maybe I'm missing something. Iranians are generally not all bad people. It's their system of government which gives control to the minority...often insane minority. To my knowledge they fund/train Lebanese forces. Hamas (of palestine) is sunni, I believe. Well, I believe they should have exclusively used precesion guided missiles...except on the border to prevent attacks. Although when you have million people in bunkers in Israel, it's a hard sell to say...well, you have to wait in those bunkers a bit longer, because we can't stop them from firing all the time. I do think places that held missiles were legitamate targets...despite civilian presence. It's not a good thing to think about, but it would be impossible to stop aggression on Israel if one purely targetted individuals and rockets w/ a policy of no-civilian casulties at any cost. No ones GI joe. Do you have a link pertaining to this? I'm interested. Not that this has anything to do with this, but terrorists are notorious on using humanitarian vehicles to transfer weapons. Yeah, but I believe their action should have occured. Perhaps not in the same manner, though. It's the same idea, though. I was saying in 49' (or whenever the six day war occured), Israel should have destroyed any regime holding bad intentions towards them. Peace shouldn't have resided until there was no means to resurgence. I don't see any reason we shouldn't talk. It gives us all the more moral ground. Agreed. We did the same for Russia. Conquer one enemy to find but another. Same as China...and there literal war on us in Korea. We support one side and we find that they become our enemies.
Oh, stop your whining and crying like a wussified pacifist! Surely it isn't already that time of the month? I didn't twist your words, they have been twisted since you started freely volunteering your undying support for terrorists groups like hamas and hezbollah while singularly attacking Israel and attempting to rewrite history. I don't have to twist your words. They are so twisted and inaccurate as they are, they stand out like a diamond in a dog's ass on a moonlit night. Oddly enough, you still didn't answer the question. Are you a holocaust denier too? That's really the only thing missing, right? Wrong. I asked you a question and given your anti-Israel responses, a very valid question, which you ignored and started crying over. As for the rest, you've freely volunteered you are against Israel. I don't need to twist your words, they are already twisted against Israel. I couldn't ask for more. Stop playing the victim, pick up your crayons, wipe away the tears and continue your mythical fairy tale of how bad Israel is and how great your terrorist buds are. Jeez, take a frickin midol and have a cup of General Foods International Coffee
My Muslim acquaintance has been doing some wonderful research and I just received an email from him with some of the initial material he thought was important. One thing he told me is that he is focusing much of his research on non-Muslim scholars as he feels referring to scholarly works by Muslims might be seen as less objective by non-Muslims. An article he pointed me today is Challenging Ignorance on Islam: a Ten-Point Primer for Americans by Gary Leupp who is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University and coordinator, Asian Studies Program. It is very good reading and is really a basic primer on the history of Islam and what it is about. Since it would be copyright infringement for me to repost that article here, I recommend people following the link and reading the article. For those who don't want to follow the link, I'll try to highlight some important points of the articles in my own words, but all of this post uses the linked article as the source material so read it to to make sure I kept things in perspective of what was written in that article. It is important to note that Islam comes out of a Judeo-Christian tradition and that Jesus is an important figure in the Koran. In fact, according to Gary Leupp, the Koran dedicates more space to Mary mother of Jesus than does the New Testament of the Bible. One big difference between Islam and Christians is that while Christians believe Jesus was the son of God, Muslims believe that Jesus was only an important prophet or messenger of God. It is very clear that that Islam worships the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham. In the Koran Jews and Christians are depicted as "people of the book". This means that according to the Koran Jews and Christians have their own holy scriptures that were bestowed upon them by God ("Allah," in Arabic). In regards to God/Allah, this is an important note, so I will quote it: The Koran does NOT call upon Muslims to kill all non-believers, rather it calls upon the destruction of "infidels," who were principally Arabs who were practicing idolatry and polytheism during the time of Muhammad. As some of us have been trying to point out throughout this thread this is where writings must be put in context. Gary was very careful to point out that the Koran is a 7th century book and it must be viewed in this context. At that the time the Koran was dictated and written down the Arab world was practicing idolatry and the Koran was calling for the violent rejection of the practices. Gary also points out that within decades the tribes of Arabia had united behind the monotheistic teachings of the Koran. So yes, the Koran calls for the destruction of the infidels, but there are two very important points that have been sorely overlooked in this thread and are extremely important: 1) The Koran recognizes Jews and Christians as fellow followers of God who God had also given sacred scriptures (and thus by definition are not "infidels"); and 2) The time the Koran was written was indeed very important to knowing what was being said when the Koran calls for the destruction of the "infidels," which turned out to be those Arabs who were practicing idolatry. Since those raising concerns in this thread a) are not Arabs, b) do not practice idolatry and c) are Christian (who are explicitly protected as "People of the Book"), they really don't have anything to fear from good Muslims who strictly follow the teachings of the Koran. Another point I have been trying to make that is also made in this article is that Islamic fundamentalists are not much different from Christian fundamentalists or Jewish fundamentalists. In Gary's words: Again it is not Islam, Christianity or Judaism that is the threat it is extremists (regardless of their religion) who are the threat. One very interesting critical observation of Islam Gary had was that where as the European Christian world went through an "enlightenment" during the 17th and 18th centuries which allowed the West to modernize by means of capitalism and become more tolerant (e.g. less religious) both of these are critical for the free flow of ideas as is the importance of separating religious teachings from the rest of education (e.g. sciences, math, history, etc.). Unfortunatly the Islamic world has yet to really embrace such an enlightenment of their own and this may be holding them back in many ways. For instance education is still monopolized by mullahs (religious leaders), much like Catholic clergy monopolized education in medieval Europe (aka the Dark Ages). Two very interesting points in the article were #8 and #9. While the Muslim world is very upset with American policy and our history of supporting and protecting brutal regimes like Shah of Iran and that of Indonesia's Suharto (who according to Gary has even more blood on his hands than Saddam Hussein), they still greatly admire the U.S. as a country (or at least they did in June of 2002 when a Zogby International poll found that in nine Muslim countries the U.S. was the most admired country). Another point I have been trying to make in my past several posts is the sordid history of the formation of Israel in 1948 and the treatment of Palestinians since. Again since this is very important I will quote Gary: Again I strongly recommend reading the article if you haven't already (http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0724.html). It is very interesting reading and unlike some here it tries to look at this issue from a dispassionate historical prospective, not a prospective tainted by a religious and political agenda. I will post more in the coming days and weeks as information is provided to me.
I don't get it. First the leftist propaganda machine tells the whole world that "Israel lost the war." Now they're trying to say Israel was too heavy-handed in it's crushing victory. Hmm... Allow me please to make this point. Israel did neither. The reason they attacked Lebanon was to blow Hezbollah off the borders, it was not the war but the beginning of the war. I still believe they will not allow this lunatic asshole in Iran to have the bomb. I think blowing Hezbollah off the border was the first stage of preparation for knocking off Irans reactor just like they did in Iraq decades earlier. And a warning to the world that if they don't want to see this happen, they better nip Iran's bullshit in the butt and fast.
Spoken like a true secularist! You obviously do not know anything about the New Testament. Jesus told us flat out that He was God. That the Muslims do not believe this clearly suggests that they do not believe in the same God. Or the same Jesus. Jesus came to this earth to give His life that none should perish. He died for others, as do all Christian martyrs. The Muslim martyr kills others, innocent people, he takes life, so he can fuck his virgins in heaven. The selfish prick. It's all about himself. And nobody else really matters. Anyone ever ask all those virgins how they feel about all this servile fucking?
Please quote chapter and verse. I was raised in a couple Christian denominations and NEVER in my religious studies was I taught that Christ claimed to be God only that he was the SON of God. Might I remind you of the Trinity that most Christian religions believe in. Seems pretty clear that Jesus is not God.
. Hahahahahahaha!!! That's exactly what I mean. You don't understand anything. The "Trinity" you speak of precisely demonstrates that Jesus was God. You apparently don't even know what you yourself believe in Trin·i·ty /ˈtrɪnɪti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[trin-i-tee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ties for 2, 4. 1. Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being. Please note that if, on the one hand, you believe that the Trinity is three distinct personalities, as the definition explains, they still all become "one Godhead" - or, if on the other hand, you believe as most mainstream Christians believe, (ie; Catholics, Protestants, etc) ...the Trinity represents: "the threefold personality of the one Divine Being," you must still come to the same conclusion. Belief in the Trinity means that Jesus was God. Very few sects believe otherwise, and the ones who believe otherwise are truly on the fringes. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims.
I might also remind you that the Trinity is A) not recognized by ALL Christian denominations; b) it was implemented under the reign of Constantine (thus it is not scriptural) and C) it IS NOT part of the Bible. So WHERE IN THE BIBLE does Christ claim to be God? Please quote chapter and verse. Even the interpretation of the Trinity is not the same between Christian denominations. I was raised in the Church and my father was a paster and I was always taught that the Trinity was three separate entities. The Father (God), the son (Christ), and the Holy Spirit (the spirit of God in believers). God is in Christ and God is in the Holy Spirit, but this is not the same as them being God. Just because God is in a person, does not mean that person is God. Again not all Christian denominations interpret the Trinity exactly the same way and since it is not scriptural there is massive room for differences of belief on this point. The fact remains that all three of the primary religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) worship the God of Abraham. You can argue semantics all you want and you can believe what you want, but the fact remains all three religions have the same scriptural roots. For the purposes of this discussion Islam recognizes Christians and Jews as worshiping the same God as Islam and thus from the standpoint of the Koran, Christians and Jews are not infidels and this is an important point in regards to the Koran's call for the destruction of infidels.
Mostly correct. I have covered this in the past as well. muslims often proclaim to believe in Jesus, but it is in no way comparable to to Christians (though uninformed people who clearly know so little about what they are talking about, have to refer to others they perceive as authoratative.) muslims believe Jesus will come back and help fight the infidels in the final days. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html Of course, KLB will attempt to whitewash the truth as he has been all along. We (I use the term loosely, since I no longer consider you a part of the "we") are also referred to as apes and swine. But you'd like to whitewash the truth, right KLB? http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006477.php (they slipped and delivered the real quran, instead of the one for infidels that KLB wants to portray) Actually, it most certainly does. The difference here is, I can reference those passages clear as day (you remember, the ones you wanted to deny, then said didn't exist, then acknowledged they did exist but were taken out of context, then couldn't figure out the context they belonged in?) Kill non believers Incorrect as well. Though KLB is working hard to whitewash the truth in the name of "political correctness" and dhimmitude, like everything else. See link above. Non-believers are infidels. From the link directly above, when debating with a muslim earlier this year: This is incorrect. As usual, I've used direct sources to actual scriptures above, where you've used...wait, you don't have any sources. Incorrect again. This is an attempt to completely whitewash islam. Good luck proving that point. I take it your buds didn't get the memo? You've already proved you cannot make points. That you *supposedly* (not like your credibility has any worth, anyway) are having to go to outside sources to be informed of the infidel version of the quran, you already admit you don't have a clue. There is a huge difference. islamic fundamentalists blow shit up, fly planes into buildings, blow up trains, subways, cars, homes, hotels, crowded areas with lots of people and virtually anything with a lung. All under the guise they will receive virgins in heaven for what? What, KLB? Killing infidels. The cause of allah. Sweep, sweep, sweep! Once again, you prove how naive you are in your flawed comparisons and attempts to equalize something that simply cannot be equalized. Incorrect. The quran instructs it's followers to commit acts of violence in the cause of allah. This is pointed out so many times, but denial is your preferred shield. Until the quran can be rewritten (which will never happen) to whitewash (what you really wished it were) the many violent verses that instruct muslims to commit such crimes against humanity, we will see the violence. We have for over a thousand years now and your naive whitewashing of history and facts will not change such. Not very critical. For the most part, islam's teachings and shari'a law are rooted in sixth century ideologies. Virtually every religion has moved on, except islam. It still promotes an ideology of barbarism from ancient times. Yeah, right Well, we don't want to upset the muslims. Fake quran toilet flushings and mohammad cartoons enlightened most of the world, except KLB, about the consequences of upsetting muslims. Yes, you were kind enough to volunteer how anti-Israel you are, then threw a hissy fit about you slipped up and let the world know the true KLB. I strongly suggest reading articles I've been posting all along. Rather than just taking KLB's naive and completely skewed anti-Israel bias positions and attempts to completely whitewash everything in reverse victimhood style. And I'll be correcting your attempt at: islam for dumbed down infidels. Rest assured
a) Which denominations do not recognize the Trinity? b) completely incorrect. Been watching too much DaVinci code Educate yourself. Apparently you are out of your league. John 8:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john 8 See accompanying footnote.
In regards to the supposed contact with Gary Leupp that KLB is asserting, the article in question referenced is answered by Silas at answering islam, quite thoroughly. Silas refers to Leupp's article as written "under the pretense of educating Americans about islam." He questions how much does Leupp know about islam (and apparently a rightful question for KLB, as it seems little) then notes that having read his "primer," concludes that he knows very little. Suggesting that perhaps Leupp, at best, researched a short encyclopedia entry on islam and a few web articles. Silas notes his intent, to comment on Leupp's sloppy islamic content with Leupp's comments being in blue to easily distinguish them. Silas then proceeds to take issue with comments from Leupp's "primer." Addressing them with great detail and sparing no effort to draw upon references to counter his points. Point Two Silas notes a significant error on Leupp's part concerning the misconception that muslim teachings are contained in a fairly compact book. Not surprising, as those without knowledge of islam might presume the quran as the only teaching, when in fact Silas goes on to note the others. In a twist of fate, Silas also sources the USC - http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/ - which I have also used as a source for islamic scriptures. There's a reason why, KLB, but I fear you've yet to figure it out. Point Three Corrected for Leupp. Many often cite incorrect numbers. Point Four Silas counters the notion of respect for other communities (Christians and Jews). Noting that some of mohammed's last words were of bitterness and hatred towards Jews and Christians. And as usual, with reference to validate. Silas continues with several counter points in Point Four, till we come to the end, of which is quite significant. It's just above "Point Five" and really makes a powerful point. Point Five Of particular interest is the flawed argument that Leupp asserts (not unlike Juan Cole), and is addressed here. As this is one of the flawed arguments, based either on deception or ignorance, that KLB attempts (but fails, repeatedly) to magically make true. This point regards the notion that the quran "does not" instruct muslims to kill non-believers. Silas notes scriptures to the contrary, but takes it a step further. A step that KLB could never accomplish, though repeatedly asked "to put it in the context you believe it goes in." Silas does just this, but conveying the context and notihg how mohammed treated Christians shortly before his death. This is a particularly noteworthy excerpt of how Christians were treated. What is taking place here is referred to as a Da'wa. Before islam agresses towards non-believers, as per the same manner in which mohammed terrorized Christians in this example, an invitation is extended to join islam first. If you refuse, you pay the tribute (jizyah) (or are attacked). Why is this so important? In May of this year, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, sent a letter to President Bush. I believe most people remember this. It was shortlived in the media and topic of discussion and most just dismissed it. But it was far more important than most realize. This was, in fact, a Da'wa. No different than what Silas references regarding mohammed and what he said in regards to terrorizing others. Basically, you have been instructed to believe. If you do not, you will pay the price. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad's_letter_to_George_W._Bush Of course, this punches a hole wider than the Grand Canyon in Leupp's assertion here, which KLB (unfortunately for him) has tried to use to "educate Americans about islam." Point Six Silas notes that Leupp is aware that islam has faults, but refused to address them. In the same fashion as KLB. Silas continues with his points, and in good form, continues to offer solid reference to not only back up his claims, but to solidly refute Leupp. The end of the well constructed and thoroughly referenced rebuttal really hits the nail on the head: Indeed. And KLB should take note as well.
KLB, you write: Agreed, which prompted me beforehand to write the following, which you somehow ignore: What I was responding to initially was your misuse of the term Trinity. You wrote: Now, again, you write: First you argue for the Trinity then you argue against it. Very disingenuous of you. Next, you write: Not so, the word Trinity, in it's Greek form, Trias seems to have been first used by Theophilus of Antioch (d. A.D. 181) and it's latin form Trinitas by Tertullian (A.D. 220) but the belief in it is much older as I shall presently demonstrate, and fully founded in the Scriptures. That the word "Trinity" does not itself appear in the Bible as proof that it does not exist is a ridiculous as saying the Bible itself does also not exist because the word Bible is also not found in the Bible. You write: IN this you show your confusion, and, sadly, your father's as well. Actually your father preached Tritheism, which denies the unity of essence of God and holds to three distinct Gods. Your father actually did not preach Trinity no matter how he mislabeled it. Now for the Bible and Scripture pointing towards and affirming the Trinity. You write: Very well then, but I do not wish to hi-jack this thread so I will only post some of the voluminous scripture which explains this with as little comment as possible: To begin with my all time favorite is found in the Gospel of John where we read: Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Now just to avoid any confusion of who, exactly, "the Word" is, John elaborates: Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Indications told in the O.T. "1. The Angel of Jehovah... As the Angel of Jehovah He appeared to Hagar (Gen. 16:7-14, to Abraham Gen 22:11-18) to Jacob (Gen 31:11, 13) to Moses (Ex 3:2-5), to Israel (Ex 14:19) to Balaam (Num 22:22-35) to Gideon (Judges 6:11-23) to Minoah (Judges 13:2-25) to David (I Chron 21: 15-17) to Elijah (I Kings 19:5-7); He stood among the myrtle trees in Zechariah's vision (Zech 1:11, and He defended Joshua the high priest against satan (Zech 3:1). IN Gen 18 one of the three "men" that appeared to Abraham is repeatedly represented as Jehovah (vss. 13, 17, 20, 22-33). New Testament affirmations Matt 28:19; 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; I Cor 12:4-6; I Peter 1:2; 3:18; 2 Cor 13:14." You are as confused about your own religion as you are about Islam. No wonder...
Rick, many people ignore this little ditti. I believe there is also mention of Jesus in either Suetonius or Tacitus, but I cannot remember which.
There's a lot of historical quotes...although that one is actually in dispute (with no affirmative decesion by historians). But there are many concerning Jesus....so either there were a lot of liars or he existed. I personally believe that a man name Jesus existed, that there were people whom worshipped him, and that he was crucified. Now, I don't think anyone can purely say anything from that to make believers out non-believers...but religions a faith. Even I am a doubting Thomas. Perhaps this one of the quotes you're thinking of... Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome: