Pat Robertson stirs up debate (Islam is not a peaceful religion)

nj.com ^ | April 02, 2003 | KRYSTAL KNAPP

[TLBSHOW]

PRINCETON BOROUGH - The Rev. Pat Robertson spoke from the lectern at Princeton University last night like it was his pulpit, calling students to stand up for their moral convictions and not be swayed by popular culture.

His hair is all gray now, he had surgery in February and is recovering from prostate cancer, but the evangelist showed no signs of wavering last night when he spoke at the invitation of a student group.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I see people being killed for not believing, you of course don't see anything wrong with this because you count yourself among those who will be safe from being killed.

BTW...it looks as if we will attack Israel as well.

Get it bro?

[TLBSHOW]

I can do that.... :>)

[unspun]

No one is killed in this prophesy. They are dead already, if they do not accept their Creator/Savior. The never have come alive. They just proceed with their death.

We won't be attacking Israel in this prophesy. That will be after much worldwide upheaval. I suppose there could be a place called America at that time, maybe even United States of, but it would not be the same as it is now. That will be after/as the Lord takes care of those he knows will accept him.

God loves people so much he is unwilling to see those who accept life corrupted and persecuted perpetually by the continual presence those who will not accept him (the dead).

[Luis Gonzalez]

Perfect...

Your "proof" of the entire gist of a religion comes from parsed bits of text, extracted by people whose sole intent is to prove a point.

Do you prefer being pulled or pushed when being led?

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

This is part of a parable, and it instructs Muslims to fight invaders and drive them from their lands, but to quit fighting them once they have stopped fighting.

"Fighting in the way of Allah" means not to kill non-combatants.

I could walk you though each and every one of the bytes that have become so popular with the fanatics, but it isn't my duty to educate you or anyone else.

To find the truth, you must loom for it yourself, because surely what will be handed to you, disguidsed as truth, will not be it.

Notice that everytime that I have quoted any portion of the Bible, you have come back with an explanation of what that particular passage was. Yet, in the case of the Koran, you are willing to take the parsed bit of text to mean that which YOU WISH TO SEE.

"...and the truth shall make you free."

[Luis Gonzalez]

"No one is killed in this prophesy."

You're kidding, aren't you?

[unspun]

No.

1. They continue to exist, because they are eternal beings.
2. They were already dead, and simply remain so, forever (death is separation from fellowship and communion with God).

[unspun]

So in this passage, persecution of any kind is worse than killing, eh? A great difference between this, and "turn the other cheek," don't you think? If anyone persecutes you, kill them, because that is kinder than persecution?

Wow.

I do hope to spend time reading those other passages too, in their contexts. I don't think I'll find any better results.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are now telling me not to believe what is clearly writen, and believe what you want me to believe.

Sorry, no go.

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." — Thomas Paine

That, and my personal relationship with my Savior.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It may not be "turn the other cheek"...but what it also isn't is what you originally contended.

There is a whole world of difference between self-defense, and wanton murder as you claimed.

[unspun]

I'm only asking you to do what you are asking me to do. Read in context, with an objective, open mind.

Thomas Paine is dead (i.e., he's separated from his earthly body, one kind of death, which we *all* experience; also if I take him at his word, as it regards God, he never lived).

That Scriptural prophesey is about death in relation to God, not earth. It's rugged to begin with the Book of Revelation, but here is an apt passage:

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=REV+20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

[unspun]

Killing someone merely because one is being persecuted is not what I have claimed is just.

[Valin]

The constitution DOES NOT protect a religion which has as one of its tenets that IF its adherents gain power they OUGHT to disallow the free practice of other religions.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom is a risky thing. But not a risky as suppressing people.
Unlike you(apparantly) I have more faith in the good sense of the American people.

[Dec31,1999]

bttt.

[Dec31,1999]

Aside from that, kill all the terrorists you want. I will cheer you on.

Will you also cheer on the killing of terrorist accomplices?

[Dec31,1999]

You can speak from what you have read, but until you speak to someone who has been in the Islamic world, you speak out of IGNORANCE!!!!!

How dare you expect to teach anything to the allmighty sinkspur!

[Valin]

True. Thanks to our modern weaponry,

The problem is (for the Islamic world) how do we(the west) do this, how do we keep coming up with these new and better machines and ways of doing things. Victor Davis Hanson touches on this in his book Carnage and Culture. In which he asks the question why the west has been so dominate militarily over the non-west, his answer is one word FREEDOM, that free men make better killers than slaves do. This is something that we don't see in the Islamic world and until they do grasp it they will not be able to match the west.

Prienne postulates that the "Dark Ages" in Europe were mainly brought about by Islamic control of the sea routes of the Mediterranean through their use of corsair pirates and the Islamic seizure of Mediterranean islands like Sicily.

This is a new one for me. If you have a link I'd be intrested in looking at it as I've begun to look at this period for a while now.

I agree with you, but my last great hope was Turkey, and when the chips were down, the Turks demonstrated that:
a) Islamic ties come first; and,
b) that old spirit of the wastes of central Asia is still alive and well in Turkey, and, as they did with the Armenians, the Turks would very much prefer to exterminate Kurds rather than reach a living accomodation with them, even if it means screwing their infidel friends the Americans.

While I was/am disappointed that Turkey made the choices they did, I am willing to take a wait and see attitude toward them. The problem with democracies (and Turkey can not be caled a strong democracy) is they sometimes do what we don't want them to. And yes they do have a lot to answer for in their treatment of the minorities. BUT it's my opinion that what the President and his team hope for is an axis of freedom in the middle east composed of Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. Weather this is possible I reserve judgement.

Consequently, when the Sultan died, there was a battle to see which of his many sons (the horney devils had many wives and concubines)would succeed the dead leader. Competitors were strangled to death with a bowstring because it was not right for a Muslim to shed the blood of another Muslim.

The idea of killing competators for the throne is really nothing new in the ancient/medival world particularly in the near east but Richard the III also comes to mind.

[ZULU]

For Mohammad and Charlemagne, see http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?chunk=25&skip=0&wauth=henri%20pirenne

Barnes and Noble, Amazon, etc. don't carry it.

"free men make better killers than slaves do. This is something that we don't see in the Islamic world and until they do grasp it they will not be able to match the west."

I agree with you there. Also a free society which is based on capitalism is open to innovation and new ideas which help generate the technology and market for new inventions, including sophisticated weaponry. An Islamic state is a socially retrograde entity, fossilized in the past and antagonistic to new ideas.

"Victor Davis Hanson touches on this in his book Carnage and Culture."

Thanks for that reference, I shall check it out.

"The problem with democracies (and Turkey can not be caled a strong democracy) is they sometimes do what we don't want them to."

Giving people the freedom of choice also gives them the opportunity to make incorrect decisions. There should be a price to pay for incorrect decisions and I hope the U.S. and its coalition partners impose that price on Turkey, France and Germany. It would be in our best interests for Turkey to come around to our side, so such consequnces in their case should be conditional on future behavior. As far as the French and Germans are concerned, particulary the French who were the ring-leaders and habe been implacable opponents of the U.S. and Britain, we should isolate them and destroy them economically. I would like to see France relegated to the social status of a second Afghanistan. The contemporary French are ungrateful, perfidious, arrogant, deceitful, vile creatures totally without redeeming merit.


"The idea of killing competators for the throne is really nothing new in the ancient/medival world particularly in the near east but Richard the III also comes to mind."

True. Richard III however was killed in battle and really died a hero defending his right. (His successor, the usurper Henry of Richmond, descendant from a Welsh gigolo, created a dynasty which did not outlast his grandchildren, and except for Elizabeth I, were really horrifying monsters, even by the standards of their own day, e.g. Henry VIII and Bloody Mary I.) This is a far better fate than being strangled in one's bedchamber. Throughout the long Plantagent period, I believe only two monarchs were really murdered vilely in an oriental fashion - Edward II and Richard II. The massacre of family members was not episodic, but continual in Islamic Ottoman Turkey.

[Valin]

Thanks for the link. I'm down to only 4 books I'm reading...and we can't have that!


Carnage and Culture I can't recomend it highly enough. He does use a broad brush but, he asks the question 'why'. It really was the first time I've ever looked at history that way, so much I've read has dealt with the who, what, where, when but not the why.
(as an aside he also writes a column for NRO)

I've always understood that Richard the III murderd his way to the throne?
Could I be wrong? Is this possible? I'm shocked!

[ZULU]

See


http://www.richardiii.net/

[kkindt]

jaziya tax

Do you know how many countries dominated by Muslims in which this tax is now being required of non-Muslims?