Maybe McCain should have vetted PalinFollow

The problem is Gbaji, what you really need is a Christian to Islam translator, because all they read from statements like that is a declaration of war on their religion, and given the actions of your country since WWII who can blame them?

See what i miss by not watching US news channels!

I must subscribe to CNN forthwith!

Oh RLY!

lrn bloody English forgiener!

Edited, Sep 4th 2008 8:53pm by tarv

She had to milk those free drinks at the bars as long as she could.

I thought Iraq was a secular country?

Not anymore.

Candy, baby, etc.

It is? Funny... I thought it was something about treating others as you'd have them treat you, and loving your neighbor and stuff like that.



So like the ten commandments? Surely one of those says "Conquer everyone and make them worship me. Ok. Not just worship me, but worship me while calling themselves the same thing you call yourself". Nope. Not there. Maybe it's one of the seven deadly sins? Nope. Not there either...


Maybe you're projecting what you think Christian's think God's plan is? Yeah. That seems right.

Two massive flaws:

Nope, none.


1. Both Christians and Muslims worship the same God. You do realize that the Torah, including the Ten Commandments, are recognized as core source for the Koran and for Islam, right? They both follow that Commandment.


Never read the Koran, I see.


2. This refers to the individual. So neither a Christian nor a Muslim (nor a Jew) can worship God *and* other deity. Nothing in that commandment says that other people can't worship as they please, nor does it require conversion, much less conversion from a religion that already worships God.


Or the Bible, apparently.


Let's Pretend Gbaji knows anything at all about religious dogma!

Need more help filling in the massive gaps in your understanding of the two religions?

No thanks. I'm fairly sure studying the sociology of religious extremist groups as it relates to warfare for a decade has prepared me adequately to laugh at your guesses. Let me check....yup. Hhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You can take it up with Joph, though. I have to admit I enjoy watching him explain Christianity to you more than the sickeningly easy refutations I could toss off at will.

Hopefully he'll indulge me. see what I did there, little turnip?

Jesus ******* christ gbaji you are the epitome of the phrase that "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"

Try to STUDY this **** before making wild assumptions about what you don't even personally believe. Two reasons

1) Religion in scripture is almost universally different than religion as practiced, almost totally different in every case.

2) Have the common ******* decency to ADMIT when you don't know everything instead of just spewing out the talking points that you learned by taking some community college intro to religion class. It's not that hard look:

I know a lot about various forms of Buddhism and a lot about the early formative years of Christianity. When I recognize that someone has studied religion as I have and might know more about it than I do then I have the decency to ASK FOR THEIR ******* OPINION before I go on a tirade about how wrong that they are. I've barely learned a damn thing about the Koran and I'd bet 10 bucks that I could beat you in a pop quiz on the ******* thing.

I think the point here was originally that gbaji called Iraq a secular country, and in that he was absolutely right!

Just 5 years out of date.

Iraq was a nominally secular country until GW acted on the voices in his head that said....

"Yo, for I art thou God and I command you to go into Iraq and bust the place up good and proper, so that loads of islamic nutters with a chip on their shoulder can come and make sure that the whole place becomes a maelstrom of religeous tensions".

Nice one Dubya!

Proof positive that no-one, NO-ONE!! in their right fucking mind should vote for someone who bases their actions on the say so of a medievel text and confesses to hearing voices in his head who tell him (or her) what to do and think..

I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about this.

Its delusional. In any other area of human existance its what gets people placed into the care of proffessionals.

And now the Pubbies are putting up candidates that believe in creationism as science .

Its like McCain or Palin has a massive fucking spiral unicorn horn growing out of their forehead, but no-one wants to mention it....

Let's clear something up first: "Jihad" does not mean "holy war". The word "Jihad", which has a dispute etymology, roughly translates to "struggle".

Medieval Islamic texts pertaining to the Crusades in the 12th century make references to two main types of jihad. The lesser type was violent or non-violent resistance to an enemy occupying Islamic land. It is inherently defensive and nowhere does it tell you to kill civilians, or even to invade lands that weren't yours to start with. It specifically says not to do that in the extensive portion of the Qur'an that deals with legitimate warfare. Analogues can be found in Christian literature to reconcile warfare with faith; read Augustine.

The greater form of jihad, and the more important one, was the internal conflict between oneself and one's impulses to sin. Winning a lesser jihad was admirable because you protected Muslims from having to convert, but winning a greater jihad was an example of real virtue because it amounted to sainthood. You basically followed the Qu'ran to the letter.

That was the medieval understanding. You're right that words evolve, and that public consensus is what determines how a word is used, but you can't ignore that the idea of jihad as an aggressive terrorist campaign was invented in about the last thirty to forty years by idiot religious extremists motivated by political reasons who, if they had fcking read their own holy texts, wouldn't be attacking women, children or noncombatants. People in my political science classes - lecturers - use the word as if it means the exact same thing as crusade, and they reinforce the negative perception of Muslims as nutjob cultists. If you misinterpret "jihad" as "holy war", then when you read the texts discussing it - and it's mentioned everywhere - all you see is "holy war holy war holy war". You don't get the context. It's like calling the IRA bombing campaigns a crusade.

Which leads to my actual point, which is that comparing the invasion of Iraq to a Christian jihad is nonsensical, since it aggressive, motivated for secular reasons, and conducted in a secular manner. Even if you admit that it's being done for greed and oil, or out of spite for the Gulf War, it's still secular. It is not a jihad. It is not concerned with the betterment of Christendom. Not to mention the term "Christian jihad" makes even less sense than "Jewish Communazi."

Well, except for much of the Old Testament