Is Islam a religion of peace?

Blackflag: Again, Stag, there's no reason to be rude. If there's something you think I said was false, try to argue it.

On a diferent forum, you once said:
If you think I said something false, then try to debate it...I am open minded about almost everything, so just debate me.

I offered a rebuttal to your points. And your first response was:

...people like Krazy expressing their self-righteous bullshit by shoving their morals down my throat.

So, if you find something wrong with my argument, then bring it up.

Krazy: That's still gender inequality, which isn't a good thing, your sense of morality is literally straight from the 1st century.

Krazy: In general, men are tougher and stronger, while women are more weak and delicate (both physically and emotionally). Sexism can be appropriately defined as a belief that one gender is superior to another. The Bible does not teach that, but it does acknowledge the obvious differences between men and women and prescribes the right roles for each sex.

People's morality back then was different now. You have such an old standard of morality, we see women and men as almost equally capable in modern day. that's actually pretty stereotypical, there's not a huge difference between men and women other than like esterone/testosterone levels, women should work instead of staying at home.

If morals change with time, then murder, lying, and stealing were once okay; or soon will be. You say that modern morality is superior to past morality (of course it's that way; not the other way around) but that is completely arbitrary. Murder, lying, and stealing are always wrong, no matter what time it is. If morality changes as time goes by, then I could argue that murder, for now, is not wrong for me, so I can go kill somebody. But after that occurs, then morality will change and murder will be wrong again; so that I'm never held accountable for my actions. That is insane. How does morality change with time? Is it the amount of people? Does majority rule in terms of right and wrong?

but unacceptence of stuff like murder lying and stealing are pretty much natural for humans

you're so insanely conservative.

genesis01: You still haven't answered my question. How exactly does morality change with time? Also, can you give me a range of years when morality suddenly changes? Like for example, is it every 500 years? Every 175 years? When does morality change?

Also, you said that morality changes with time - but not for lying, stealing, and murder. So morality doesn't change with time? Why does morality change for some morals but not for others, such as lying, like you said? Why does it not apply to murder or stealing? It's very inconsistent.

Krazy: -facepalm- What don't you get about my statement, slavery, racism, religious intolerance and all were seen as okay by some civilizations back then. Even in the USA, racism and slavery was seen as fine in the past, now it's not. I don't know when morality changes, I never said I do, i cant predict the future. Things like stealing and murder is naturally against human nature.

genesis01: What don't you get about my statement, slavery, racism, religious intolerance and all were seen as okay by some civilizations back then.
Yes, and they are seen as okay by a lot of people today. What's your point?

I don't know when morality changes
Then how do you know that the morality of the Bible didn't change? For all you know, morality never actually changed for thousands of years and biblical morality is still true. This is assuming, of course, that morality changes.

Even in the USA, racism and slavery was seen as fine in the past
But that didn't "make" it right. Just because the majority believes in something, that doesn't make it true. You said that a lot of people in the modern world don't believe in gender roles. But you can't use majority opinion as an argument.

Things like stealing and murder is naturally against human nature.
That's very inconsistent. Why does morality change - only for certain subjects? And not others?

Krazy: Bible thumping theocrat.

genesis01: When someone ceases argumentation and resorts to name-calling and ad hominem attacks, that's a good indicator that they don't have a logical argument to back up their beliefs.

All this talk about the bible has led us to forget what this thread is really about. Nobody has proved that Islam is a violent religion.

Bolshevik-: Nobody has proved that Islam is a violent religion.
Then why did you say earlier that Islam was violent?

Well neither Islam or Christianity are religions of peace.
--STALIN

Krazy: On a diferent forum, you once said
Should have said "thread" not forum.

Bolshevik-: And actually, somebody has proven that Islam is violent. Look at the second post of this forum.

Krazy: Ah, I mean "thread" not forum.

Both religions have been violent, but I believe that this can be solved if the two are not constantly at war with each other. Both religions are bad and neither is more or less peaceful than the other. However neither religion is going away so we might as well learn to live with both of them. The idea of neither religion being a religion of peace is because of crimes committed by a few in the name of that religion.

Bolshevik-: Both religions have been violent, but I believe that this can be solved if the two are not constantly at war with each other.
The Bible never commands Christians to go to war with unbelievers or be belligerent towards them. If you are saying that people should stop clearly twisting Scripture to justify their violence, then I totally agree.

The idea of neither religion being a religion of peace is because of crimes committed by a few in the name of that religion.
If the world was completely atheistic, that wouldn't change anything. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history, yet it had nothing to do with religion. It had to deal with political and economic ideologies. Of course, this depends on the definition of "religion". But anyway, the point is that if Christians want to be violent, they have to severely twist Scripture and take it out of context to justify their actions, whereas Muslims can just point to the actions of their own founder to justify military jihad in the name of their god allah. Not to mention the passages in the Koran that clearly say to kill unbelievers.

Krazy: You twist scripture and take it out of context to justify your nonsense, especially with gender roles, theocracy and etc. I don't get how you have an american flag in your profile picture if you like theocracy, because america isn't a theocracy, it was founded to have church state seperation.

genesis01: Since you are obviously being disrespectful and rude, this thread debate hasn't been very fun. You refused to answer my questions, so you used name-calling as a last resort (by the way, bullying is against the rules in edeb8 forum).

You twist scripture and take it out of context to justify your nonsense, especially with gender roles, theocracy and etc.
The Bible outlines marriage roles in Ephesians 5:22-33. It says it right there. I never said I supported the notion of a theocracy.

I don't get how you have an american flag in your profile picture if you like theocracy,...
You can't use an ad hominem attack as an argument. And also, stop using that straw-man argument. I never said I supported a theocracy.

...because america isn't a theocracy...
You are correct. It's not a theocracy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. It is a republic.

...it was founded to have church state seperation.
What does that have to do with this? We were just talking about marriage roles, not what the government should do. And just by the way, the concept of "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution.

genesis01: I support the concept of "separation of church and state", but I'm just saying, that phrase is not in the U.S. constitution.

Krazy: If you are saying that people should stop clearly twisting Scripture to justify their violence, then I totally agree.
Funnily enough, moderate muslims say *exactly* the same thing.

And where you distinguish catholics from christians, they distinguish extremists from muslims.

admin: Funnily enough, moderate muslims say *exactly* the same thing.
Then there must not be very many of them, because entire nations read the Koran and desire to kill unbelievers, such as Iran (Persia). Either way though, nobody has still given a single verse from the Bible that commands Christians to kill unbelievers or do violence, despite how long this thread is.

And where you distinguish catholics from christians, they distinguish extremists from muslims.
It's not "my" distinction; it's the Bible's. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Catholics don't teach that. They teach that you must keep the "seven sacraments" and keep "baptismal regeneration" to be kept saved. If that's the case, then obviously Jesus Christ's death and resurrection wasn't enough to save us, which the Bible states that it is. And a lot of the Catholic teachings are clearly not part of the Bible. It doesn't say in the Bible to worship Mary, pray to saints, or need seven sacraments to be saved.