Way to go Islamics again!
- Thread starter Tha_Perv
- Start date
Excellent post perv. Boo hoo, moslems bombing their own. So what? Are we supposed to feel sorry for them when they've been actively complicit in enabling the same terrorism that kills them? I like Jesus and all, but when you're dealing with rabid animals, turning the other cheek eventually becomes suicidal.
They don't want to be blamed for their co-religionists' savagery, fine. Let Moslems start ratting out their own kind. Let them prove as individuals that they can be trusted, because over several decades, the group as a whole has proven that it can NOT. And the reasons it can not are the very reasons that DEFINE the group in the first place.
A convocation of top Islamic "intellectuals" recently declared that as long as the five major tenets of Islam were respected by a Moslem, he could NOT be declared an apostate for any reason. Take a look at those five pillars sometime, Ace. They go like this:
1. Believe in Allah
2. Pray 5 times a day
3. Give alms
4. Fast
5. Go to Mecca
You'll notice that "Don't fucking kill people, assholes!" isn't among them.
How long are we going to put up with this horse shit? Really? Obviously 3000 lives is too low for brainless simpletons like 20sixx and Jaeill. How about 300,000? 3 million? 300 million? Should Moslems launch a nuclear missile at the United States, are you still going to be saying that a "backlash" against the scum who will, inevitably, cheer it - or blandly mumble "All killing is wrong" (sotto voce: "Except if they're infidels!") - would be wrong? That they shouldn't suffer for it? What exactly does "ALL costs" encompass?
They don't want to be blamed for their co-religionists' savagery, fine. Let Moslems start ratting out their own kind. Let them prove as individuals that they can be trusted, because over several decades, the group as a whole has proven that it can NOT. And the reasons it can not are the very reasons that DEFINE the group in the first place.
A convocation of top Islamic "intellectuals" recently declared that as long as the five major tenets of Islam were respected by a Moslem, he could NOT be declared an apostate for any reason. Take a look at those five pillars sometime, Ace. They go like this:
1. Believe in Allah
2. Pray 5 times a day
3. Give alms
4. Fast
5. Go to Mecca
You'll notice that "Don't fucking kill people, assholes!" isn't among them.
How long are we going to put up with this horse shit? Really? Obviously 3000 lives is too low for brainless simpletons like 20sixx and Jaeill. How about 300,000? 3 million? 300 million? Should Moslems launch a nuclear missile at the United States, are you still going to be saying that a "backlash" against the scum who will, inevitably, cheer it - or blandly mumble "All killing is wrong" (sotto voce: "Except if they're infidels!") - would be wrong? That they shouldn't suffer for it? What exactly does "ALL costs" encompass?
Islam is a religion of submission and love for allah. I am a roman catholic and fight these fucks. However the insurgents and terrorists do not represent true islam. Any true muslim will tell you that terorrists do not represent true islam. It is a version of radical islam that takes the kuran out of context to fit thier jihad. Islam is not to blame for this, fuckin ass hole terroists are. The greatest gift god gave us was free will. However it was his hardest test. Anyways so dont say fuck islam for this, say fuck terrorist assholes.
i have one question.....being religious, doesnt it say in teh bible thou shall not kill? or does god give exceptions to man to wage war and kill somewhere else???
like does he say thou shall not kill.....unless blah blah blah....maybe you could point me to teh scriptures where he gives an ok to kill
Taken together, we can discern a simple definition of ratsach: It refers to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal -- which means either 1) as an angry reaction to stimulus; or 2) lying in wait, as one waits for prey. We have no difficulty or contradiction in Scripture with this verse, or with places where God declares judgment of death upon men.
But there is another verse which skeptics makes hash of, Leviticus 24:17. The word here is nakah, and some make much over the fact that though this is forbidden by God, we see the Canaanites getting nakahed, David nakahing Goliath, etc. -- well, nakah occurs in the OT almost 500 times! But it actually would not have taken much to figure this one out, either. Nakah is a word that is used in the sense of striking (Gen. 19:11, where land is nakahed), defeating or conquering (Gen. 14:5, 7, where Abraham nakahs an army). It does not mean "to kill" but is given that definition by context alone. Being that nakah does carry this variety of nuances, it is absurd to allege that there is some contradiction in Scripture over nakah.
But even if the nuances were the same, skeptics should consider a simple fact which they will refuse to accept: God's command not to nakah in Leviticus offers an obvious exception, that God may command others to nakah those deserving judgment -- the prescription is to men, concerning men. God owns His creation; it is His right to do as He pleases with it; and this in no way suggests that God is commanding a breaking of His own rule, since a higher rule -- that of righteous judgment upon those deserving of it -- is in effect, over and against a rule that is part of a "general guidance" law code. Skeptics who complain about "God ordering people to break His own rules" tend to miss this salient point, because they are assuming a 21st-century concept of law upon an ancient law code with a different purpose!
Addendum: Practical Application. In light of the above a reader asked for some commentary on how the command "thou shalt not kill" would apply in various situations today. I will provide a few applications thought of offhand, and any reader may make or request further comment on given situations.
War. It is here that some difference of opinion arises, and anti-war protesters have at times used this command. In light of the above delineations it appears that such objectors could be right, if a war is pursued under certain conditions. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait would constitute a premeditated act; but our reply war in the Gulf was seen as a matter of liberation and defense, and the current (2002-3) war in Iraq is framed as a war of defense against terrorist elements. While making no statement on that issue, a war waged for such a purpose clearly does not come under the rubric of ratsach, nor would America's War of Independence, nor World War I and II as a whole (though of course individual acts of ratsach may still occur). Animals do not fight for their freedom from tyranny, and they fight to defend themselves, which is neither done in passion nor is it premeditated.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html
is this accurate?
But there is another verse which skeptics makes hash of, Leviticus 24:17. The word here is nakah, and some make much over the fact that though this is forbidden by God, we see the Canaanites getting nakahed, David nakahing Goliath, etc. -- well, nakah occurs in the OT almost 500 times! But it actually would not have taken much to figure this one out, either. Nakah is a word that is used in the sense of striking (Gen. 19:11, where land is nakahed), defeating or conquering (Gen. 14:5, 7, where Abraham nakahs an army). It does not mean "to kill" but is given that definition by context alone. Being that nakah does carry this variety of nuances, it is absurd to allege that there is some contradiction in Scripture over nakah.
But even if the nuances were the same, skeptics should consider a simple fact which they will refuse to accept: God's command not to nakah in Leviticus offers an obvious exception, that God may command others to nakah those deserving judgment -- the prescription is to men, concerning men. God owns His creation; it is His right to do as He pleases with it; and this in no way suggests that God is commanding a breaking of His own rule, since a higher rule -- that of righteous judgment upon those deserving of it -- is in effect, over and against a rule that is part of a "general guidance" law code. Skeptics who complain about "God ordering people to break His own rules" tend to miss this salient point, because they are assuming a 21st-century concept of law upon an ancient law code with a different purpose!
Addendum: Practical Application. In light of the above a reader asked for some commentary on how the command "thou shalt not kill" would apply in various situations today. I will provide a few applications thought of offhand, and any reader may make or request further comment on given situations.
War. It is here that some difference of opinion arises, and anti-war protesters have at times used this command. In light of the above delineations it appears that such objectors could be right, if a war is pursued under certain conditions. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait would constitute a premeditated act; but our reply war in the Gulf was seen as a matter of liberation and defense, and the current (2002-3) war in Iraq is framed as a war of defense against terrorist elements. While making no statement on that issue, a war waged for such a purpose clearly does not come under the rubric of ratsach, nor would America's War of Independence, nor World War I and II as a whole (though of course individual acts of ratsach may still occur). Animals do not fight for their freedom from tyranny, and they fight to defend themselves, which is neither done in passion nor is it premeditated.
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nokilling.html
is this accurate?