I just don't get it...
 

On Sep 9, 1:58*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they have
a
different opinion.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Take a look in the mirror, nom. *Those were *your* words, bounced
right back at you. *If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling
one off yourself.

Which words? Where? I never attacked you or anyone else here.

Strawman, and a swing and a miss. The rest was just someone (me)
refuting your opinion with links. If any of that is what you consider
an attack, you may not be cut out for usenet. Just my opinion.

Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years
of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until
he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. *A general, a warrior, a
warlord. *He sure didn't turn the other cheek.

And he did this because??

Because he didn't share the same non-violent philosophy as Jesus.

You remember this?
Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being
friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas
Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye.

You posted:
Completely untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Well, your link, and the one I provided, shows your opinion to be
false. Read up on this a bit, and get back to us when you understand.

I just don't get it...
 

On Sep 8, 10:15*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Katie Ohara" wrote in message

....

I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being
friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas
Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye.

Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Jesus would hardly approve.

1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by
Christains.

Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his
army?


2) From the link I provided:

Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original
monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other
prophets.

Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe
awaits Jesus.

Strawman. What Muslims believe have nothing to do with who Mohammed
was. Oh wait, yes it does. They beleive that he was a general who
conquered an entire region with violence.

Does that action follow the teachings of Jesus? You evidently don't
think so, since you believe Jesus wouldn't have approved of the
Crusades or any other violence by Christains.

I just don't get it...
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 1:58 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...

It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they
have
a
different opinion.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Take a look in the mirror, nom. Those were *your* words, bounced
right back at you. If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling
one off yourself.

Which words? Where? I never attacked you or anyone else here.

Strawman

You refuse to post my supposed attack. Thus, you weren't truthful when you
said I attacked you.

Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years
of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until
he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. A general, a warrior, a
warlord. He sure didn't turn the other cheek.

And he did this because??

Because he didn't share the same non-violent philosophy as Jesus.

Or, because he was under threat. Read it again.

You remember this?
Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being
friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas
Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye.

You posted:
?Completely untrue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Well, your link, and the one I provided, shows your opinion to be
false. Read up on this a bit, and get back to us when you understand.

We was not bloodthirsty and even his followers think so much of Jesus that
they prepared a grave for him next to their honored dead.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about this, unless of course you
mistakenly believe that Islam )and its followers) is a violent religion.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I just don't get it...
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 8, 5:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Katie Ohara" wrote in message

...

I think Jesus and Mohammed would have been friends.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Nom: Now think about that a little more (Jesus and Mo being
friends), Jesus was a sorta Flower Power love everybody type whereas
Mo was a bloodthirsty warlord. I doubt they'd see eye to eye.

Completely untrue:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Not so fast:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_general

Jesus would hardly approve.

1) Jesus would hardly approve of the Crusades or any other violence by
Christains.

Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his
army?

Of course not. Now, answer the same question about the Crusades.

2) From the link I provided:

Muslims thus consider him the restorer of the uncorrupted original
monotheistic faith (islam) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other
prophets.

Next to Muhammad's tomb, there is another empty tomb that Muslims believe
awaits Jesus.

Does that action follow the teachings of Jesus? You evidently don't
think so, since you believe Jesus wouldn't have approved of the
Crusades or any other violence by Christains.

Thus, Christians are just as bloodthirsty as Muslims.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I just don't get it...
 

On Sep 9, 2:48*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 9, 1:58 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

....

It sure is easy it seems for you to attack just about anyone if they
have
a
different opinion.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Take a look in the mirror, nom. Those were *your* words, bounced
right back at you. If that was an attack, you had no problem pulling
one off yourself.

Which words? Where? I never attacked you or anyone else here.
Strawman

You refuse to post my supposed attack. Thus, you weren't truthful when you
said I attacked you.

I posted the words, that's what you asked for. Your logic is failing
you. Why did you cut "swing and a miss", which were your words? Are
you trying to be untruthful?

Mybe you should spell out *my* supposed attack, since we obviously
have a different concept of what that means.



Contrary to your opinion, I posted proof that Mohammed spent ten years
of his life building an army by defeating one tribe at a time, until
he was powerful enough to defeat Mecca. A general, a warrior, a
warlord. He sure didn't turn the other cheek.

And he did this because??
Because he didn't share the same non-violent philosophy as Jesus.

Or, because he was under threat. Read it again.

Are you stating that Jesus was never under threat? That he never had
a reason to lash out in violence? Jesus chose not to, because he
didn't believe in violence. Mohammed, not so much.


We was not bloodthirsty and even his followers think so much of Jesus that
they prepared a grave for him next to their honored dead.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about this, unless of course you
mistakenly believe that Islam )and its followers) is a violent religion.

That card won't play. The issue at hand is not if the religion and
its followers are violent, but if Mohammed was a warlord. History...
Islam's own history... shows him to be so. He spent ten years killing
in the name of Islam.

Do you believe that killing was justified? Is there justifiable
killing other than sef-defense? How about when you travel great
distances, seek out villages and attack and kill them, because they
aren't of the same religion as you? Is that OK?

I just don't get it...
 

On Sep 9, 3:04*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his
army?

Of course not.

Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you.

I just don't get it...
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his
army?

Of course not.

Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you.


Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence? Hardly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

I just don't get it...
 

On Sep 9, 4:09*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message

....
On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his
army?

Of course not.
Then you just proved my original point as being correct. *Thank you.

Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence?

You held him up as not being a violent man. Now you agree that he
was, and Jesus would not agree with his actions.

Do you really want to continue this discussion? Especially now that
you have agreed with my viewpoints?

I just don't get it...
 

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 4:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his
army?

Of course not.
Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you.

Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence?

You held him up as not being a violent man. Now you agree that he
was, and Jesus would not agree with his actions.

He was not particularly violent. I stand by my previous comments.
Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they would be enemies.

Do you really want to continue this discussion? Especially now that
you have agreed with my viewpoints?

You seem to have the need.


--
Nom=de=Plume

I just don't get it...
 

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 4:09 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 9, 3:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 8, 10:15 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

Would Jesus approve of the violence perpetrated by Mohammed and his
army?

Of course not.
Then you just proved my original point as being correct. Thank you.

Your point? That Mohammed was a bad man, advocating violence?

You held him up as not being a violent man. Now you agree that he
was, and Jesus would not agree with his actions.

He was not particularly violent. I stand by my previous comments.
Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean they would be enemies.


Nom=de=Plume


Non violent? He was wounded a couple times and was in a bunch of major
battles. Mohammidism would not be big today if his armies had not conquered
most of Europe. He was knocking on the door to Paris when he was forced
back to the African continent.