The Mosque Should Be Built!

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

They are??? So I guess Christianity's firm stance that all Muslims will burn in hell for all eternity is "Tolerance"?

"tolerate" and accepting as truth are two seperate things. Believing those who do not accept Christ are going to "burn in hell" is a far cry from not tolerating other religons existence. I have to believe that your intellect is such that you do not equate believing a religion is wrong and sending someone to hell with intolerance.

[Walks_in_islam]

You think this discussion is something new? It is not. Your intolerant forefathers created these words for you and you can just repeat them and insert your denomination without making up some new ones.

392 AD:

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retributions of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment
We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of th sign of the venerable Christian religion.


This culminated with the death penalty in 435 for non-christians.

The christian church from that time engaged in hundreds of years of oppression and murder of non-christians. Indeed our own country was founded not on tolerance, but on the rock-solid principle that the government will be free of and not tied to religion of any type. This is NOT because of Islam, Buddhaism, etc etc but because CHRISTIANS were murdering and persecuting either other christians who did not share their belief or non-christians so badly that people wanted a place to flee to and practice their beliefs freely.

Those of you who want to go back to 392 AD? You don't even have to make up new words - just follow those who represented the christian church before you. Just replace "Catholic" with whatever magachurch you want to run things. It works, even Galileo recanted his beliefs in the face of church law LOL

God help all of us when and if you do.

[NotforSale]

A "farce?" That's the best you can do? Name calling? Okay, bozo.

Lemme see, do I really have the time to Fisk all of these meat heads?

These bozos feel like that's an endorsement from Jimmy Carter's veep.

Put down your crack pipe NotForSanity and pay attention. You can play the loony card all you want, but at the end of the day you are still a loon.

It's straight. And if you want to start a thread dealing with your hallucinations I will come straight at you.

Pel, all of your above comments don't sound like the Pel I've known on this Board. I noticed on another Thread, others were wondering if it was even you making the derogatory and cutting comments like the ones here.

You begin to lose me and others when you start sounding like an enraged "Talk Show Host". In my years of discussing tough subjects, this slant in debating is a sign of desperation and defeat because you are allowing your anger to bleed through to your words, leaving your professional form behind.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You think this discussion is something new? It is not. Your intolerant forefathers created these words for you and you can just repeat them and insert your denomination without making up some new ones.

392 AD:

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retributions of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment
We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of th sign of the venerable Christian religion.


This culminated with the death penalty in 435 for non-christians.

The christian church from that time engaged in hundreds of years of oppression and murder of non-christians. Indeed our own country was founded not on tolerance, but on the rock-solid principle that the government will be free of and not tied to religion of any type. This is NOT because of Islam, Buddhaism, etc etc but because CHRISTIANS were murdering and persecuting either other christians who did not share their belief or non-christians so badly that people wanted a place to flee to and practice their beliefs freely.

Those of you who want to go back to 392 AD? You don't even have to make up new words - just follow those who represented the christian church before you. Just replace "Catholic" with whatever magachurch you want to run things. It works, even Galileo recanted his beliefs in the face of church law LOL




God help all of us when and if you do.

There is no doubt that hundreds of years ago the Roman Catholic church persecuted non Christians. I thought we were having a conversation about today.

Let me ask you this. How many Islamic states allow Christians to operate freely in them? In most Christians are not allowed to witness and if they do they are arrested or extradited.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by CC1

There is no doubt that hundreds of years ago the Roman Catholic church persecuted non Christians. I thought we were having a conversation about today.

Let me ask you this. How many Islamic states allow Christians to operate freely in them? In most Christians are not allowed to witness and if they do they are arrested or extradited.

muslims still give freedom to people with their heads cut off.

One of the distinguishing factors between Islamic criminal law and Western criminal justice is public executions. In the past, the west used to execute people and then they stopped. Afterwards they made an analysis that concluded that the crime level didn't decrease due to executions, so there was no reason to bring it back. However in the Muslim society, public executions does keep crime levels down and this is a fact.

It can be estimated that the population of Saudi Arabia is similar to the population of New York City, but the number of murders which are committed in Saudi Arabia in a year are less than the number of murders which are committed in New York City in a week. One of the key factors for this is public executions.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/558

[acerrak]

this use to be a country that stated, One nation Under God, but it is now one nation under god(s).

If you agree the mosque should be built, well lets see what God (the true God) has done in the past, cause we have a record in the bible of such things. I.E. babylon was raised to destroy Judah cause they fornicated to fake gods.

its just a matter of time for history is repeated

[coadie]

Originally Posted by acerrak

this use to be a country that stated, One nation Under God, but it is now one nation under god(s).

If you agree the mosque should be built, well lets see what God (the true God) has done in the past, cause we have a record in the bible of such things. I.E. babylon was raised to destroy Judah cause they fornicated to fake gods.

its just a matter of time for history is repeated

Joshua was told to get rid of the uncircumcised. Remove them. Not appease them.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by james34

When you support their right to build,you indirectly support their religion.

baloney. He directly supports the constitution. It has nothing to do with being Muslims that want to build a mosque. He is saying, as an American under the Constitution in this blessed land we all home that ALL religions have the freedom of worship just as you do. Blame the founders for setting the ground work for you to be able to worship freely, as opposed to being forced to practice Catholicism or Anglicism

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Walks_in_islam

You think this discussion is something new? It is not. Your intolerant forefathers created these words for you and you can just repeat them and insert your denomination without making up some new ones.

392 AD:

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retributions of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment
We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of th sign of the venerable Christian religion.


This culminated with the death penalty in 435 for non-christians.

The christian church from that time engaged in hundreds of years of oppression and murder of non-christians. Indeed our own country was founded not on tolerance, but on the rock-solid principle that the government will be free of and not tied to religion of any type. This is NOT because of Islam, Buddhaism, etc etc but because CHRISTIANS were murdering and persecuting either other christians who did not share their belief or non-christians so badly that people wanted a place to flee to and practice their beliefs freely.

Those of you who want to go back to 392 AD? You don't even have to make up new words - just follow those who represented the christian church before you. Just replace "Catholic" with whatever magachurch you want to run things. It works, even Galileo recanted his beliefs in the face of church law LOL

God help all of us when and if you do.

3 points,well 2 and one question

Question: what is the source for that quote?

Point 1, that was centuries ago and since then the Catholic church no longer follows that path, when will Islam do the same?

Point 2, few of us here would accept any of those men as our forefathers, considering since we would be considered non-Christians by the Catholic church as well

[coadie]

I wonder if any of the liberal females have an opinion on the recent Newsweek (or was it Time) cover of the Aghani woman who had her nose cut off by the Taliban for some peculiar transgression or another. Such a charming action, ladies. Of course we have to tolerate this.