Muslims would shut down all your bars and brothels.

They'd let you marry your cousins, though. And four of them. And you could be as chauvinistic as you wanted to be.

Christians encourage a certain behavior (and some may go too far), but in the end they give you a choice and forgive you.

Not much choice with Muslims, and Cambodians don't really care for Muslims either.

That said, not all Muslims are so bad ... And not all missionaries either.

SOMEBODY in this country has to give a darn, though, right?

I think there are some extreme Christians, too, and there are variances in denominations like there are various genres of guide books: a few are great, some are so-so, and some just stink.

Some people you just can't speak to about religion. I think that goes for most posters here. Less said, the better, unless there were a religious section.

You're going to offend someone, though and it appears someone here has been seriously hurt by Christians/Catholics.

Both missionaries and salesman have things to sell, so Stroppy doesn't bother me.

But you see how the tinge of (the horror!) Christianity (!!) in an overreactive way changed one member's view of him? Before he was a good poster, now he's got a sinister plot to rule the world and win over your soul?

Yeah, whatever. Nothing to see here.

He called himself a jew. But he was upset with the religion that
was going nowhere. At the time it was said that there was no where
for the religion to go until certain events happened that were predicted
in the old testament. Think riding into town on burrow(sp?). He made
those things happen so that there would be no excuses for not
reforming the religion. He seems to have wanted something more
like Abraham of old times would approve of. Muhammad was greatly
interested in his teachings and really disapproved of what Rome did
400 years after his death, essentially making church and state the
same thing, with state running things. Had they met in 700 AD, they
may have formed Islam together.

Dara wrote:He called himself a jew. But he was upset with the religion that
was going nowhere. At the time it was said that there was no where
for the religion to go until certain events happened that were predicted
in the old testament. Think riding into town on burrow(sp?). He made
those things happen so that there would be no excuses for not
reforming the religion. He seems to have wanted something more
like Abraham of old times would approve of. Muhammad was greatly
interested in his teachings and really disapproved of what Rome did
400 years after his death, essentially making church and state the
same thing, with state running things. Had they met in 700 AD, they
may have formed Islam together.

That is an interesting post Dara. Actually the classical Muslim view point is that the Original and True Religion was that of Abraham and that all subsequent prophets (David, Moses, etc) are "True" Prophets sent down to clarify, remind, correct and add more. However the Muslim POV is that the Jewish Priestly caste tried to monopolize religion for themselves rather than spread it. This is the original point of Difference between Muslims and Jews. The Muslim POV is that Jesus was sent down not to atone for original sin but to teach and remind people that the faith of Abraham is universal, and to also reform the the Jewish Priestly caste. In Muslim lore Jesus was raised to Heaven during the crucifixion and needs to return to earth when God is ready to die a natural death as all humans must.

Thus it is Jesus who will return for the end days (Not Muhammad) at which point he will tell Christians "Thanks for the support but I never said I was God -- so you got it wrong) and which point all "Believers" will unite in a war against Satanic forces.

Thus Jesus is almost as important as Muhammad in Muslim teaching and in the end days will play a much greater role as Muhammad already died.

For these reasons you will never see Muslims attack mock or attack Jesus in the same way that Christians hate Muhammad so much.

The dispute with Christians is that Muslims believe that no-one or no thing can be associated as being "God" or part of God etc.

Other than that Jesus is treated with love and respect. It is the concept of the trinity that is problematic for Muslims.

Were Adam and Eve Jewish? If they were the first people ever, wouldn't that make everyone on the planet Jewish?

0to60 wrote:Were Adam and Eve Jewish? If they were the first people ever, wouldn't that make everyone on the planet Jewish?

Interesting. I think that most anthropologists try to place the first humans in Africa.

I guess that would make us all African?

And the trinity thing is what rome wanted in the year 400 dust up.

In the year 700 it was still a little bit fresh in the minds of religious
types what a disaster it was that the bible was changed and words
were put in peoples mouths that would never have said such things.

Rain Dog wrote:

0to60 wrote:Were Adam and Eve Jewish? If they were the first people ever, wouldn't that make everyone on the planet Jewish?

Interesting. I think that most anthropologists try to place the first humans in Africa.

I guess that would make us all African?

LOL, You blinded me with science when I was expecting religious hocus pocus apologia.

OrangeDragon wrote:

Rain Dog wrote:

dagenham wrote:Interesting...ever since he was called out on his patently outrageous "Islamist Invasion of OZ" the good 'ol boy has been totally mute on tis thread....while posting like mad on other ones (per usual)...and he is never ever silent...hmmm...probably acutely embarrassed for revealing himself...oh well, I sincerely wish him well and may he rest in peace...

But he'll be back..it''s his job after all...

Yea -- but it's maybe for the better. He was not addressing the topics anyway and none of us needs more escalation as to personal attacks.

In my case I feel my points have been satisfactorily made so there is no need to rub his face in it.

I only got back on here to protest OD's protection of him and harassment of you.

Also to OD's credit --- I think he is a bit blinded by personal affinity to stroppy and that is reflecting poorly on how this forum is managed-- but I also need to add he has been remarkably patient (if still too stubborn) in dealing with all the criticisms. A lot of mods in some forums would be in a "Do not Challenge me" nuking frenzy by now.

He's actually respecting my request of him to not further this argument any more by feeding dengaham's trolling. just as i no longer respond to his accusations that i'm an alcoholic or his fixation on the fact i used capitals for emphasis once because i was too lazy to type the bbcode for the bold command.

deng is a troll... all of his rants and attacks, i don't even believe he believes them any longer, especially after the night i saw him drunkenly stumbling down the street outside 136 bar so wasted that when i called his name from across the street he looked around but couldn't even fix his eyes on the source the stumbled off again.

he's only here to wind everyone up, it's his porn... and the past day most have gotten him harder than a teenage boy in a girls locker room.

OD, dawg! Ask jm, or even G-mack, or anyone else who knows me - I am never ever "drunk". I am known as a lightweight wisp who can't even drink 3 beers in 1 sitting. You on the other hand, apparently fit the definition of a "serious drinker" with an intimate ongoing relationship with alcohol. And getting pounded often. As you candidly posted yourself:

"With my schedule I start drinking when many of you start working... so it cuts down on how often I go out to do so. When I do it's occasionally an 8-14 hour run of barhopping with my wife asking how I spent $250 on drinks. But I only have a hard one like that 1-2 times a month.

My average weekend night out is only 8-10 drinks... which still probably qualifies. during my month of no work however those big nights were significantly more frequent, as i'd get started with buddies and then keep going once they'd tapped out."

Plus if you review the various threads you are extremely defensive about anything "alcohol related" even to the point of appearing to defend the "right to choose" to drive drunk. You should talk to someone maybe about all that pent up rage and the wild misperceptions that you sprout.

And you use caps constantly - look at your posts, silly little boy. Yelling out of frustration? Unexpressed anger?

You're losing that sharp edge of yours, Brother...and you protect dear gentle SC, who is afraid to address his bizarre assertion that evil Islamists are invading OZ. Many others see you for the inconsistent moderator that you are. So it goes...

Now you are returning to the ultimate "Nanny State Totalitarian Oppressive Monster" soon enough...good luck with that...stay away from the "Man" - he's out to get ya....

Dengaham, it was clearly you. Maybe you did recognise me when you looked up and then stumbled off out of shame hoping i'd forget and not blow your act. Either way, you were clearly quite hammered.

Do I drink, absolutely. I enjoy a good drink, and I enjoy getting a little hammered now and then. Quite fun in my book.

Anyway, I see your trolling isn't going to abate, so as I instructed stroppy, this will me my last reply to you outside of having to take some action on behalf of the site/moderation. Hopefully others will now see you for the troll you've shown yourself to be and follow suit until you get bored and shuffle (drunkenly i imagine) off.