It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Western Christian stereotyping of Islam is at best, ignorant, and more likely hypocritical and bigot

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Klassified

Hey, I've got an interesting idea. Why don't you go over to the thread where the OP gets mad at Christians posting bible quotes on a conspiracy forum..... don't forget to tell them you hate Christianity and that's why you are spewing as many scriptures as you can.

Been there, in case you hadn't noticed. And if you actually read the OP, you know his biggest problem wasn't with bible quotes. It was with walls of bible text, as well as proselytizing. Hate xtianity? Not by any means. Certain types of xtianity? Yes. The type I used to be, mostly.




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I think you could use a brush up on history. The Crusades were a response to the Islamic conquest of Christian lands(beginning with the conquest of Spain)


Though revisionist scholarship over the past few decades has taken a decidedly politically correct view of the these conflicts, trying to apply certain modern value systems onto the vastly different historical conditions and attitudes of the time, the goals of Crusaders from the 7th to 11th were to recover regions that had originally long been Christian kingdoms until being conquered during the first of many waves of Islamic Jihad. Failure to appreciate the physical and cultural environment of the people involved when examining this topic has become a common mistake. As historian Raymond Ibrahim writes when discussing modern views toward the Crusades: “Medieval man was not modern man. While all men throughout all time have been prone to hypocrisy, greed, violence, etc., Medieval Christians, as opposed to their 21st century (secularized) counterparts, were, by default, much more guided by faith (whether this faith was misplaced or not is hardly the point). 

’Secularism’ was never an option; Christians firmly believed in heaven and hell, God and the devil. And these were motives…One need not believe in God and religion; but one should still give them their due when discussing the Medieval world.” (“The History Channel’s Distortion of the Crusades”
by Raymond Ibrahim, June 6, 2009. See: victorhanson.com...)


www.thearma.org...

By the way Bush is a member of Skull and Bones, a secret society dedicated to the conquest of power and domination over the entire world, and interestingly so is John Kerry. Many Skull and Bones members go on to become members of the CFR in both the Democrat and Republican side of politics, employing the Hegelian dialectical method of conflict resolution with resulting synthesis of two opposing forces. Skull and Bones members are usually given positions of high authority and power in industry, banking, and other areas, even media. The John Birch Society even published a book about Bush Sr called "The Establishment's Man". Bush Jr is a 3rd generation Bonesman. I have no doubt that someone of that caliber would use religion as a platform for control.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

So wait let me get this straight. Maybe doesn't exist anymore. There is only yes or no and maybe equals no? Let me ask you this. Do aliens exist? I say maybe since proving one or the other is impossible right now.

You're maybe = no argument strikes me as incredibly ridiculous. Am I the only one who thinks "maybe" is an acceptable response?
edit on 17-10-2014 by tavi45 because: auto correct mistake



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I agree with your OP in most cases. I would say this is all a symptom of backlash though. People are reacting to the outright attack on western culture. They see that Islam is often given a free pass out of caution, nothing really wrong with that, but then western culture is put under an absurd microscope and criticism by the same people. That makes it REALLY wrong since the defense of others must then feed off that criticism as the sole force of support for others. This brews false tolerance and ultimately discord on all fronts by skewing the self image of a respectfully proud yet balanced and happy medium for all.

Thats why I say being ultra critical of our own culture so as to appease others is counter productive towards real peace. In the mind of others, if you want me to respect the culture of others but you yourself cant respect my culture then you arent exactly very reliable or stable. At that point you are the farthest thing from reason and as a result you are ignored for your insanity and imbalance.

You know what I see, people who know their own culture and celebrate it have no issue respecting the celebration of the culture of others. People who need to insult and be absurdly critical of their own culture only superficially "respect" the culture of others. Once the media hype dies down those false defenders of tolerance are the front line of the affront on that very culture they defended when it was popular to do so.


edit on 10 17 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Before you go thinking Islam is all warm, cuddly, and misunderstood, you may want to give this a viewing:




posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: Prezbo369

So wait let me get this straight. Maybe doesn't exist anymore. There is only yes or no and maybe equals no?


If you're not a theist, then you're an atheist. Just like if you collect stamps you're a stamp collector, and if you don't, you're a non-stamp collector.

In order to be a theist you would have to answer Yes to the question 'do you believe in god?'.....anything else including 'maybe' or 'I don't know' means you're an atheist.

If someone was to ask you 'do you collect stamps?' and you replied 'maybe' then you're not being honest and are in fact (as you are in this case) being dishonest.

If on some days you do believe, then on those days you're a theist. On the days you don't, you're an atheist.


Let me ask you this. Do aliens exist? I say maybe since proving one or the other is impossible right now.


I don't know.......?


You're maybe = no argument strikes me as incredibly ridiculous. Am I the only one who thinks "maybe" is an acceptable response?


Thats not my argument, a maybe answer is not a 'yes'. And you don't have to say 'no' to be an atheist.....



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Atheist means no belief in a deity - agnostic means is unsure of the existence or non-existence of a deity.

You know, I know and everyone else knows that atheist is the incorrect term for what you are trying to describe.


You used the term incorrectly and have been arguing for the sake of it for pages now. Just move on.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: SomePeople

Weak Atheists (Sometimes referred to as Agnostic Atheists):
"I see no evidence in support of a God or Gods therefore I don't believe in any that have been claimed to exist, but I don't know that there is no God or Gods yet to be discovered."

Strong Atheists:
"I see no evidence in support of a God or Gods therefore I don't believe in any that have been claimed to exist and I reject the idea that any exist."
edit on 17-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

We seem to all just be making up terms as we go along. I'm fine with that, but it muddies the waters of comprehension.

I like the concept, though - I might even start making up my own for some things.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

So what's the proper term for me? I neither reject nor accept organized religions or God as fact. I actually pray every so often so clearly I don't reject God outright. I thought that was agnostic (the maybe of religion rather than yes or no). Please enlighten me on how to describe my views rather than accusing me of being atheist, which I'm not

Either way it seems to be irrelevant. My person beliefs on religion don't affect the reality of the lslamophobic double standards.
edit on 17-10-2014 by tavi45 because: auto correct mistake



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SomePeople

I'm not making anything up... Thanks for the baseless accusation.

Atheism



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: tavi45

I don't recall accusing you of anything or placing any labels on you, and I'm not about to start. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. If you feel that fits you then there you go.

Agnosticism
edit on 17-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Sorry I confused you with the guy who did exactly that



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: fishwhisperer


I have no problem in agreeing that that most Mulsims are peacfull. It is the Islamic scriptures and the example of Mohammad that I and the world is dealing with that I have a problem with, as that is the root cause that gives Muslims the authority and justification to act like animals

You have no problem as in agreeing that moat Muslims appear to be peaceful in your area of the world as of now but given the opportunity that would change in a heart beat. The Muslims who are peaceful in this country are only peaceful because the they are subdued by numbers and that is slowly changing. The way it is changing is that they are well versed to take advantage of the mild mannered stupid Americans who are ashamed to be Americans. These wannabes believe that through political correctness they can love these people into being as stupid as they are.

One day you will see exactly what the truth is and I believe that day is soon to come. If one is a Muslim that one is conditioned to believe that its entire thought process is above that of an infidel and that when that Muslim has the advantage heads will roll. It matters not where in the world you are it is the same mindset. The American Muslim is no different than any other Muslim. They all eat from the same trough. I don't know your age but you may well see the day that you will have to kill to survive. It is the gravest of threats that Obama and his cronies are in bed with.



posted on Oct, 17 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I could say the same about American Christians. The only reason they don't behead people is because they are civilized enough to use banks, lawyers, propaganda, and the military to do their work for them.

Keep pretending Islam is the problem when it's all just economic and social issues perpetuated by corrupt top down systems of rule.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am not a follower of any mainstream religion, but when I look at what is happening in the world today there is only one religion still in the dark ages. Muslims still kill in the name if their God and while Christians can be annoying they don't kill people anymore.

Blaming any group of people for their past is disingenuous. If Muslims want to be part of the 21st century we are all waiting to welcome them.

True, we live in the here and now and we are responsible for our actions during our lifetimes. While past atrocities certainly are a page in our history they were not committed by those of us alive today and we are no more responsible for these actions than you are. There were many wars between Europe and the Ottoman empire,some won and some lost by both sides.And believe me the Muslim Ottomans were every bit as nasty as the Europeans.
The wars led by Bush were not started in the name of Christianity\ religion had nothing to do with it,It was strictly a money and oil grab .These guys over there are burning down churches and BE-HEADING CHILDREN ALL IN THE NAME OF ISLAM.This isn't a myth or a false accusation.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: fartsmeller46

So if my father killed your father and stole your land and money condemning your family to poverty and you would look down on your son for hating my son? Cause that happened before he was alive so he's crazy for blaming my son right?
edit on 18-10-2014 by tavi45 because: auto correct mistake



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: SomePeople
a reply to: Prezbo369
Atheist means no belief in a deity - agnostic means is unsure of the existence or non-existence of a deity.


Unsure means you have no belief, you lack the belief.......yes? If you lack the belief in a god you're an......(that dirty word you don't seem to like)

This is basic logic.


You know, I know and everyone else knows that atheist is the incorrect term for what you are trying to describe.


See above...


You used the term incorrectly and have been arguing for the sake of it for pages now.


If I did, then you just did aswell.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: WakeUpBeer
So what's the proper term for me? I neither reject nor accept organized religions or God as fact. I actually pray every so often so clearly I don't reject God outright.


If you pray to a God, then you're neither agnostic nor an atheist, but a theist as you believe theres a god to pray to....


I thought that was agnostic (the maybe of religion rather than yes or no). Please enlighten me on how to describe my views rather than accusing me of being atheist, which I'm not.


Well if you're unwilling to even consider what might be the correct description then why not describe yourself as a pineapple?

And 'agnostic' isn't a religion either...


Either way it seems to be irrelevant. My person beliefs on religion don't affect the reality of the lslamophobic double standards.


Then why even mention it?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Can you please show the peer-reviewed, scientifically valid research you have to support your views? If not, your views are just derived from the "War on Terror" propaganda and limited experience of Muslims.


And again, people like you are always trying to imply that the Muslims and Muslims countries are the most violent, when in fact the West has been instigating far more violence and wars over the past 100 years.


originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: fishwhisperer


I have no problem in agreeing that that most Mulsims are peacfull. It is the Islamic scriptures and the example of Mohammad that I and the world is dealing with that I have a problem with, as that is the root cause that gives Muslims the authority and justification to act like animals

You have no problem as in agreeing that moat Muslims appear to be peaceful in your area of the world as of now but given the opportunity that would change in a heart beat. The Muslims who are peaceful in this country are only peaceful because the they are subdued by numbers and that is slowly changing. The way it is changing is that they are well versed to take advantage of the mild mannered stupid Americans who are ashamed to be Americans. These wannabes believe that through political correctness they can love these people into being as stupid as they are.

One day you will see exactly what the truth is and I believe that day is soon to come. If one is a Muslim that one is conditioned to believe that its entire thought process is above that of an infidel and that when that Muslim has the advantage heads will roll. It matters not where in the world you are it is the same mindset. The American Muslim is no different than any other Muslim. They all eat from the same trough. I don't know your age but you may well see the day that you will have to kill to survive. It is the gravest of threats that Obama and his cronies are in bed with.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join