I have been under the impression that Mohamed believed that all infidels and especially apostates should be killed. Was I wrong?

short answer is yes you are wrong try reading the Koran to find out what he says about infidels and it's not that they should all be killed but tolarated

---

I have been under the impression that Mohamed believed that all infidels and especially apostates should be killed. Was I wrong?

short answer is yes you are wrong try reading the Koran to find out what he says about infidels and it's not that they should all be killed but tolarated

That's very true Glenn.
When Spain was a muslim/islamitic country both jews and christians where tolerated.

Why don't you provide examples to help illustrate what you mean by your terms?

bobby...

Sorry for entering the shallow universe of many, who believe that The Bible should be treated differently, from the other Religious History's of other peoples. Who also believed in Gods, Miracles, and Super Humans.

Ahh, yes, the "many". Are any of their number here?

So...

I divided their shallow thinking into Secular (Non-Biblical) and Religious (Biblical).

Although it is true, that this differentiation is incorrect.

Surely that depends on the basis of the differentiation? Texts that are religious in nature are different to those that are secular, or are you arguing that the labels are irrational?

There are those (The Intolerant) who believe there is a difference.

I'm sure there are some that have intolerance as the basis of a differentiation, though I'm not sure any have posted to this thread.

Therefore... I have entered their universe, in an attempt to have them understand the error of their thinking.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case: They are incapable.

Why not provide an illustration of your universe and let others see how it differs to their own? (a discussion based on "this is what a believe and here are my reasons for doing so", may have more positive results than one based upon "here's what you believe and it is wrong")

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Did Mohamed ever have any one murdered in order to solidify his position?

---

Dave Nelson

Did Mohamed ever have any one murdered in order to solidify his position?

Criticism of Muhammad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Muhammad

Did Mohamed ever have any one murdered in order to solidify his position?

Quite possibly the only two historical leaders who haven't done that are Ghandi and Mandela. If Mohamed is behind the murder of people in order to solidify his position, he is in the fine company of pretty much every historical leader ever. To pick him out and hold it against him while ignoring everyone else is only evidence of your own double standards.

" To pick him out and hold it against him while ignoring everyone else is only evidence of your own double standards."

Who did that?

---

Dave Nelson

I suspect you were trying to work your way there.

I have been under the impression that Mohamed believed that all infidels and especially apostates should be killed. Was I wrong?


short answer is yes you are wrong try reading the Koran to find out what he says about infidels and it's not that they should all be killed but tolarated
That's very true Glenn.
When Spain was a muslim/islamitic country both jews and christians where tolerated.
Wish that was true today.

Christianity and Judaism have evolved.

Islam has devolved.

Re: Mohammad tolerating infidels.

The Quran, having read many sections, cited by a Muslim friend of mine. Divides Mohammed into two parts.

A General and The Prophet. Think of Daniel warring against his own people, and what he became later.

The General was for annihilating his enemies.

The Prophet was tolerant

As Clyde has explain'd and Jann has said it's not the religion but the leaders of the religion , much like the Catholic church was in the 1400's so brushing all Muslims with the tag of Terrorist only severs the terrorist's and war mongers of politics

The Muslims don't denigh that Jesus was not a prophet , but that he was also a prophet for his ppl .

As was Budda ??
Krishnas ??

Toleration.........maybe !

---

I have been under the impression that Mohamed believed that all infidels and especially apostates should be killed. Was I wrong?

Jews and Christians according to Muhammad are to be considered Ahlul-Kitab, which literally means the “People of the Book.”

I have been under the impression that Mohamed believed that all infidels and especially apostates should be killed. Was I wrong?


short answer is yes you are wrong try reading the Koran to find out what he says about infidels and it's not that they should all be killed but tolarated
That's very true Glenn.
When Spain was a muslim/islamitic country both jews and christians where tolerated.
Wish that was true today.

Christianity and Judaism have evolved.

Islam has devolved.

Re: Mohammad tolerating infidels.

The Quran, having read many sections, cited by a Muslim friend of mine. Divides Mohammed into two parts.

A General and The Prophet. Think of Daniel warring against his own people, and what he became later.

The General was for annihilating his enemies.

The Prophet was tolerant

As Clyde has explain'd and Jann has said it's not the religion but the leaders of the religion , much like the Catholic church was in the 1400's so brushing all Muslims with the tag of Terrorist only severs the terrorist's and war mongers of politics

The Muslims don't denigh that Jesus was not a prophet , but that he was also a prophet for his ppl .

As was Budda ??
Krishnas ??

Toleration.........maybe !

Therein lies the problem, It's hard to have a religion without leaders and it's hard to get rid of the leaders without destroying the religion.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Therein lies the problem, It's hard to have a religion without leaders and it's hard to get rid of the leaders without destroying the religion.

Some what true Bob , it will depend if your talking ISIS or the Muslim Religion . There are more moderate Muslim places

Indonesia 200 mill Islam , Malaysia 30 mill Islam , Philippines 102 mil , 10% Muslim in a Catholic country , Singapore 5 mill 33% Buddhist 15% Muslim

So whipping up B/S propaganda just because it's coming up to a election soon is something better left unheard

---

Why don't you provide examples to help illustrate what you mean by your terms?

bobby...

Sorry for entering the shallow universe of many, who believe that The Bible should be treated differently, from the other Religious History's of other peoples. Who also believed in Gods, Miracles, and Super Humans.

So...

I divided their shallow thinking into Secular (Non-Biblical) and Religious (Biblical).

Although it is true, that this differentiation is incorrect.

There are those (The Intolerant) who believe there is a difference.

Therefore... I have entered their universe, in an attempt to have them understand the error of their thinking.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case: They are incapable.

And there are some that suggest the the Old Testament is in large part historically accurate, like Menachem Begin saying Jewish slaves built the pyramids, which is very likely a myth, or that Moses lead an Exodus of, according to Numbers, over 600,000 men from Egypt to Israel, which is almost certainly a myth.

As Rabbi David Wolpe states in the second link:

A tradition cannot make an historical claim and then refuse to have it evaluated by history. It is not an historical claim that God created us and cares for us. That a certain number of people walked across a particular desert at a particular time in the past, after being enslaved and liberated, is an historical claim, and one cannot then cry "unfair" when historians evaluate it.

Is the rabbi guilty of the false differentiation you note others making?

If Jewish scholars can tolerate (and, in some cases, lead) investigations into the historicity of the Torah, why shouldn't we pose similar questions regarding the foundational document of Christianity?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Referencing 'Ancient' History:

ALL History contains Myths, Gods, People with Super Human Abilities. Minor events made larger and more important. Personalities which never existed, or made more important. Important Events and Personalities forgotten.

ALL Recorded History is from the Cultural Perspective and Religious Belief of the people writing them. Incorrect and Correct.

Many of the Personalities and Events were written down generations, and even Hundreds of years after the supposed Events and Personalities.

All, or at least a substantial proportion of 'Accepted' Non-Biblical History, is accepted as a foundation/starting point of what may have occurred.

Question: What is the difference?

Why accept the Non-Jewish/Christian Pagan History, with all its incorrect references, and not Jewish/Christian History? It is the same.

Answer: A Non-Intelligent and Intolerant, Anti-Jewish/Christian Agenda.

Just my opinion. You may disagree.

What incorrect Non-Jewish/Christian Pagan history do you believe is accepted?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby...

Ain't gonna work. I do understand the technique you use when shown to be incorrect.

What was shown to be incorrect?

The open question you cannot answer:

Why accept the Non-Jewish/Christian Pagan History, with all its incorrect references, and not Jewish/Christian History? It is the same.

bobby...

This is a question regarding your assertions.

Answer, if you can.

When information is shown to be incongruent with the available evidence, it is my understanding that the appropriate action is to discount that information as factual in nature. Thus I would not propose that anybody accept as a factual account of events the incorrect references in whatever it is you mean by "Non-Jewish/Christian Pagan History", just as I would not propose a person accept such references in "Jewish/Christian History" as a factual account of events.


It is unclear to me:

what you mean by acceptance, (e.g. acceptance as fact, vs acceptance as myth)

what you are classifying as history, (the historicity of people and events, cultural heritage, legends, etc)

why, in a discussion about historicity, you choose the terms you use.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It is unclear to me:

what you mean by acceptance, (e.g. acceptance as fact, vs acceptance as myth)

what you are classifying as history, (the historicity of people and events, cultural heritage, legends, etc)

why, in a discussion about historicity, you choose the terms you use.

bobby...

Message 1736926. Do you need more?

Note to others: Sorry for allowing bobby to hijack this thread. By his asking, already answered questions.

Just his way.

Note 2: If you wish me to stop entering his universe: Drop me a line in the PM's.

Fair enough. It's not clear to me that you have answered the question "Is the rabbi guilty of the false differentiation you note others making?", so I'll restate it as "do you believe the rabbi quoted in 1738497 inhabits one of the shallow universes you mention in 1736926?",

Do you believe that any question regarding historicity indicates that the questioner inhabits one of these shallow universes?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It is unclear to me:

what you mean by acceptance, (e.g. acceptance as fact, vs acceptance as myth)

what you are classifying as history, (the historicity of people and events, cultural heritage, legends, etc)

why, in a discussion about historicity, you choose the terms you use.

bobby...

Message 1736926. Do you need more?

Note to others: Sorry for allowing bobby to hijack this thread. By his asking, already answered questions.

Just his way.

Note 2: If you wish me to stop entering his universe: Drop me a line in the PM's.

Fair enough. It's not clear to me that you have answered the question "Is the rabbi guilty of the false differentiation you note others making?", so I'll restate it as "do you believe the rabbi quoted in 1738497 inhabits one of the shallow universes you mention in 1736926?",

Do you believe that any question regarding historicity indicates that the questioner inhabits one of these shallow universes?

Bobby...

All Leftists, Rightists, and Religious Believers, inhabit a shallow intellectual universe.

They are fundamentally the same.

The shallow intellectual religious believers. Accuse those who do not 'believe': Blasphemers, Devil Worshipers, Infidels, etc.

The shallow intellectual Left. Accuse those who do not 'believe': Fascists, Right Wingers, Racists, etc.

The shallow intellectual Right. Accuse those who do not 'believe': Communists, Left Wingers, etc.

All three above are, of course, the same.

And all, if give real power: Will, as history instructs, commit the most barbaric crimes imaginable.

It is their hatred of those, who aren't them, which drives their speech and actions.

Which is all well and good. There were two questions, this does not answer either.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

bobby...

Ain't gonna work. I do understand the technique you use when shown to be incorrect.

What was shown to be incorrect?

The open question you cannot answer:

Why accept the Non-Jewish/Christian Pagan History, with all its incorrect references, and not Jewish/Christian History? It is the same.

bobby...

This is a question regarding your assertions.

Answer, if you can.

When information is shown to be incongruent with the available evidence, it is my understanding that the appropriate action is to discount that information as factual in nature. Thus I would not propose that anybody accept as a factual account of events the incorrect references in whatever it is you mean by "Non-Jewish/Christian Pagan History", just as I would not propose a person accept such references in "Jewish/Christian History" as a factual account of events.


It is unclear to me:

what you mean by acceptance, (e.g. acceptance as fact, vs acceptance as myth)

what you are classifying as history, (the historicity of people and events, cultural heritage, legends, etc)

why, in a discussion about historicity, you choose the terms you use.

Translation?

Rejecting part of something is being viewed as a complete rejection of all of it and, in turn, acceptance of all of the "opposite" not even just part of it.

Translation?

Rejecting part of something is being viewed as a complete rejection of all of it and, in turn, acceptance of all of the "opposite" not even just part of it.

Sarge...

This is what I am attempting (failing so far), to understand about bobby's thinking.

It appears he rejects most of a Specific Peoples History. Because of their belief in a Deity, Miraculous Events, Superhumans, outright lying, written decades or centuries after the event and personalities depicted.

All Ancient Peoples History do the same.

Why the rejection of one, and not the others?

Then you misunderstood my answer.

I've already said in this thread:

"Personally I would not count the Iliad as documentary evidence of Helen's existence"

"I believe the evidence for the existence of Achilles is as compelling as that for Jesus."

"When information is shown to be incongruent with the available evidence, it is my understanding that the appropriate action is to discount that information as factual in nature."

Does that make it clear? For me the source of the information is irrelevant when making a determination about the information's historicity.

Please answer the questions about the rabbi, and those who pose questions about historicity.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Translation?

Rejecting part of something is being viewed as a complete rejection of all of it and, in turn, acceptance of all of the "opposite" not even just part of it.

Sarge...

This is what I am attempting (failing so far), to understand about bobby's thinking.

It appears he rejects most of a Specific Peoples History. Because of their belief in a Deity, Miraculous Events, Superhumans, outright lying, written decades or centuries after the event and personalities depicted.

All Ancient Peoples History do the same.

Why the rejection of one, and not the others?

May I ask a favor? As your time allows, please take a random sample of Bobby's past postings. I suggest 10 from each year Bobby has posted, so about 100 posts? I don't think you're going to get a good enough idea about what he accepts, rejects and takes a more nuanced approached to from just a few posts in one thread. I tried to provide another angle by a link to his posts in Matt Giwer's anti-Semitic thread from about 2 years ago. Bobby provided the best arguments (present) against Matt Giwer's anti-Semitism. You replied when I linked that but I didn't really follow. Seeing a larger picture, I don't think Bobby is the type of person you think he is. I think I can tell fairly well now what you have your guard up against and you are right to have you guard up. But, I have found it best, in my own experience, to always have my guard up, while most people cannot even tell it is up and there is a time to act and there is a time to remain vigilant.