"Muslim ban" is more a bad reflection on MOHAMMAD than on Trump

The reason that there is no "Hindu ban", and no "Buddhist ban", and no "Jain ban", etc. is because Mohammad taught Jihad, and other religions don't. So the fact that every single nation (every one!) that Trump is banning are MUSLIM-majority is not as much a reflection of Trump (he's just REACTING to the violence of the followers of Mohammad) but rather a reflection of the role model of the Muslims, and the jihad violence that is a result of his teachings.

Question: do you believe that the "Muslim ban" is more a bad reflection of Mohammad, or a bad reflection of Trump?

Me, I think Mohammad - Trump is just trying to keep us safe - Mohammad and his followers want us to live as second-class citizens under Islamic rule per Qur'an 9:5 and 9:29, etc. If you want to complain about the Muslim ban then complain about Mohammad - they are following his lead (Trump is not the one advocating a religious caliphate.)

Your opinion?

 

Mohammad was a false prophet. He was a warlord, a pedophile, and a misogynist. As an occultist, he based his religion on the worship of the Moon God, Allah.

I would not follow or love a religion started by Mohammad anymore than I would one started by Genghis Khan, Aztecs or Thuggies.

 

Islam is an intolerant backwards misogynistic hateful tribal cult. Other religions are relatively harmless.

 

Trump's travel ban wasn't on Muslims it was on countries where terrorists are known to thrive. Turns out they're all predominately Islamic countries but whose fault is that?

 

There is no Muslim ban.

 

Then why does our enemy in this world war follow such a beast, in your opinion?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, sure there isn't. Keep telling yourself that.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, Mohammad's fault.

- - - Updated - - -

All religions take people away from reality (such as a magic talking invisible dead guy who walks on water who will let you survive your own death if you believe in him - no other real criteria, just believe in him), so all religions are dangerous. But I'll leave it at that.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying it's Mohammad's fault - and not Bush's fault, nor Trump's fault, nor Western Culture's fault, correct?

 

Crusades, Inquisitions, Pograms, witch burnings, hatred/killing of gays, hatred towards women, empowering slavery (god/Jesus accepted slavery), taking people away from science, religions not understanding/teach democracy.....yeah, all completely harmless....RIGHT!

 

Can you also condemn god/Bible/Jesus for there hatred of women? We wouldn't want to be hypocrites. Can you, Max?


Here's a list of hatred towards women taught by Jesus and pals from the NEW TESTAMENT ALONE! So Jesus and pals were also, as you describe, "intolerant backwards misogynistic hateful tribal cult." Not sure why anyone would be a follower of EITHER religion.



Matthew

Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that. 5:32, 19:9
When Jesus' mother wants to see him, Jesus asks, "Who is my mother?" 12:47-49
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 19:29
"Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19
The kingdom of heaven like ten virgins who went to meet their bridegroom. Five had oil for their lamps and five didn't. When the bridegroom was ready for them, only the five well-oiled virgins got to have sex with him on their wedding night. The bridegroom shunned the other five, saying "Get lost. I don't even know you." The moral to the story is this: watch out, you never know when (or with whom) Jesus will come.25:1-13
Mark

Jesus shows disrespect for his mother and family by asking, "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" when he is told that his family wants to speak with him. 3:31-34
Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30
In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. 13:17
Luke

"They had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren."
Oh God, another barren woman! It's always the woman's fault in the Bible. 1:7
Even Mary had to be "purified" after giving birth to Jesus. Was she defiled by giving birth to the Son of God? 2:22
Males are holy to God, not females. 2:23
Peter, James, and John leave everything (including their families) to follow Jesus. (See 4:38 for reference to Peter's wife.) 5:11
Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21
Jesus insults his mother (the Most Holy Blessed Virgin Mary). 11:27-28
Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 18:29-30
John

"Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
And his most blessed mother said unto him, "I'm your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mother, you jerk." (Or words to that effect.) 2:4
Jesus magically perceived that a Samaritan woman had been married and divorced five times previously. (He could spot a divorced woman a mile away.) Since women weren't allowed to get a divorce, it was always the woman's fault and divorced women were considered outcasts. This was a great opportunity for Jesus to explain why the Mosaic marriage laws were unjust and correct them -- if he thought they were wrong, that is, which apparently he didn't. 4:7-18
Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he hasn't yet ascended -- as if the touch of a woman would defile him and somehow prevent him from ascending into heaven. 20:17
Acts

Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
If you "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," then you and your whole family will be saved; otherwise, God will send you all to hell. 16:31
The jailer was so impressed with the holy jailbreak that he converted on the spot. He and his entire family were baptized that night. It didn't matter to Paul (or God) what the jailer's wife and kids thought about it. They were "his" so he could do whatever the hell he wanted with (or to) them. (This stupid story supports the idea of infant baptism, which has divided Christians for centuries.) 16:33
Romans

Paul explains that "the natural use" of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. 1:27
1 Corinthians

Paul would prefer that no one marry. But he says "to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife." 7:1-2
"Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." 7:27
Paul says "the head of the woman is the man," meaning that the women are to be subordinate to men. 11:3
If a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her her head must be shaved. 11:5-6
"A man ... is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." 11:7
"For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man." 11:8
"Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 11:9
Every women should have power on her head because of the angels. 11:10
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" 11:13
Women are commanded by Paul to be silent in church and to be obedient to men. He further says that "if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church." 14:34-35
Ephesians

Wives must submit to their husbands "in every thing" as though they were Christ. "For the husband is the head of the wife." 5:22-24
Wives must reverence their husband. 5:33
Colossians

Wives, according to Paul, must submit themselves to their husbands. 3:18
1 Thessalonians

Every man should know how to possess his penis or his wife (depending on the translation) in a holy way. 4:4
1 Timothy

Women are to dress modestly, "with shamefacedness" -- "not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 2:9
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 2:11-12
Men are superior to women since Adam was made before, and sinned after, Eve. But even though women are inferior to men, they shouldn't be discouraged because they shall "be saved in childbearing." 2:14-15
"A bishop must be ... the husband of one wife." Apparently, it's OK for laymen to have several. 3:2
Honoring widows indeed 5:3-10
You should help a widow only if she: has no children or nephews; is desolate, trusts in God, and prays all the time; is not living in pleasure (a widow living in pleasure is the living dead); is over 60 years old; had only one husband; has raised children; has lodged strangers; has washed the saints' feet; has relieved the afflicted; and has diligently followed every good work. 5:3-10
Never help a young widow (one under 60 years old). When they wax wanton against Christ, they'll get married, and be damned to hell for rejecting their faith. Besides, young widows are idle busybodies, wandering around from house to house saying things they shouldn't say. They should get married and have children (though they'll be damned to hell for it). Heck, some of them have already turned aside after Satan. 5:11-15
2 Timothy

In the last days, "silly women" who are "ever learning" will be "led away with divers lusts." 3:6-7
Titus

A bishop should have only one wife. I guess it's OK for laymen to have several. 1:6-7
"Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands." 2:4-5
1 Peter

Peter orders all wives to be "in subjection" to their husbands. 3:1
Wives are to use "chaste conversation, coupled with fear." They are not to braid their hair, wear gold, or put on any "apparel." They are to do these things in imitation of the "holy" women of the Old testament who were "in subjection to their won husbands: even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." 3:2-6
In relation to her husband, the wife is "the weaker vessel." 3:7
2 Peter

Lot, who in Gen 19:8 offers his two virgin daughters to a crowd of angel rapers and later(19:30-38 ) impregnates them, was a "righteous man." 2:8
1 John

John writes to the men (fathers) only. Women (mothers?) are not important enough to address. 2:13-14
Revelation

Jezebel (whom God had thrown off a wall, trampled by horses, and eaten by dogs (2 Kg 9:33-37) is further reviled by John, saying "that woman Jezebel" taught and seduced God's "servants to commit fornication." 2:20
Jesus will "cast her [Jezebel] into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her." 2:22
Only 144,000 celibate men will be saved. (Those who were not "defiled with women.") 14:1-4
Drinking the wine of fornication. 14:8
The great whore has "committed fornication" with all the kings on earth. Everyone else is "drunk with the wine of her fornication." She sits on a scarlet colored beast with the usual 7 heads and 10 horns. She carries a cup full of the "filthiness of her abominations" and has a big sign on her forehead saying: "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth." You'll know her when you see her. 17:1-5
"And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs." 17:6
"All nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her." 18:3
The "great whore" corrupted the earth with her fornication. 19:2
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

 

The most ignorant post of the week. God/Jesus does not promote slavery. The Crusades were a military war against advancing muslim hordes into Christian land, self defense. Christians don't hate women. Nothing in your post but pure ignorance.

 

Do you think that there is more court-room level of evidence for any OTHER god, such as the god of the Bible/Jesus? I say "no"! What say you?

 

Pure ignorance of scripture.

 

More a reflection on Trump because Trump proved his ignorance for the law and the constitution.

 

I love it when liberals try to justify modern day atrocities by Islamists with crusaders from the middle ages and 1600's witch burnings. The point being Christians don't burn people alive anymore - Muslims do.

 

Since you think I'm one of the most ignorant posters on this forum, let me ask you this, Max: if you had Jesus' alleged all-powerful abilities (or are there things this god can't do?) would you, in the name of compassion, have come down and educated, just educated, the white slave-holders that the Bible got it all wrong since the Old Testament expressly approves of slavery (it even teaches it's ok if a beaten slave dies if the death drags out past about 48 hours) and Jesus ACCEPTED slavery in the New Testament and never spoke out against slavery? Would you, Max? I would, because Modern Secular Humanists do what's best for humanity. Would you?

If you can't clearly answer "yes", then please realize that Modern Secular Humanism might be a good alternative belief system for you.

See, those slave-holders kept doing slavery partly because the Bible/god approved of slavery, and how could god/Bible be wrong?

 

and in 2017, those are NOT issues from the other religions (for the most part, there are always exceptions)

in 2017, those are DEFINITELY ISSUES with islam.

In 1800 I would agree with you, but we'd be writing by carrier pigeon.

 

So the Christians are ethical enough, care about the world enough, to change their barbaric texts (the Bible) which to this day expressly approves of killing witches, killing gays (Jesus is also so intolerant that he won't let them into his elitist invisible gated country club in the sky), treating women like garbage, etc. Do they care as much as Modern Secular Humanists, lemmi?

 

Your posts are pure ignorance and hatred.

 

So Christians love the world enough to have changed their texts....or are they simply NOT FOLLOWING those texts anymore (which says all we need to know about how good those texts are), and lack the moral courage to change those texts? They give their children a book, and say it's the best book in world history (inspired by god no less!) that says to kill gays and you seem to give them a pass as long as they don't slaughter gays themselves.

 

You say that because you can't counter me logically, with facts/reason and evidence, I'm afraid. I find that people who give their children a book that has dragons in it, and don't tell their children that any book with dragons in it is to believed only as much as other books with dragons in it such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Game of Thrones, etc., tend to base decisions on feeling and fear (fear of "hell"), and don't look towards science and reason as much as we Modern Secular Humanists do.

Have a great day.

 

So, here we have another example of a thinly veiled criticism of Islam in the OP to elicit the responses of presumably sympathetic Christian conservatives, at which point the real objective of the thread, a lengthy criticism of Christianity, is exposed.

 

Like I said: If you can't clearly answer "yes" [and you clearly couldn't], then please realize that Modern Secular Humanism might be a good alternative belief system for you. We can answer "yes" to that question because we love humanity more than Christians do - they won't answer "yes".

- - - Updated - - -

I dare you to show me ONE, just ONE, person on this forum who has written more posts condemning Islam as I have. My friend, I condemn all religions, because I love humanity so much.

 

I don't have to answer anything for you. If you honestly want to discuss scripture, then present one scripture and I'll be happy to explain it to you.

 

If you can't answer "yes" to that question then please realize that the "hatred" is coming from you, not from me! I answer "yes" to that question, but your hatred of slaves leads you to not summon the moral courage to answer "yes", I'm afraid to say. When you can summon the moral courage to answer "yes" to that question then you'll be as caring and compassionate as Modern Secular Humanists.

 

I much prefer a jihadi who simply blows himself up, to the ones that prattle on so.

 

That's because you won't like the answers that you give. My answers are more loving, your answers (would be) less loving. So if you answer my questions you'd realize that Modern Secular Humanism is more loving than Jesus - and that would likely mean that Jesus is not as advertised, so your promised "afterlife" would be far far less certain. That scares you. I scare you, so you won't answer my questions.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes - hey, he gets 72 virgins to rape (when you get a quota of sex partners that's RAPE), so it's win/win!