5 Religious Answers to Any Dilemma in a Holy Book

When you do ask a religious person a question about a dilemma in a sacred text, you may get one of 5 types of answers.

• An illiterate of the text might deny the existence of the verse. Which means you made it up and you are lying! i.e., No answer!
• A Literalist might say "Who am I to question the word of God? God works in mysterious ways!" Which means it is what it is, go away! i.e., No answer!
• A Non-literalist might say "It says this, but it really means that" "Don't take it literally or out of context" Which means just change the meaning to something else different from what it really is. i.e., No answer!
• A priest might say "in our faith, we don't have just scripture, but we have dogma which is a code of beliefs which is the divine information which will explain any other sort of thing which may come up in scripture" which is a very nonspecific general statement that doesn't answer the question which means you will not get it because you don't have dogma. i.e., No answer!

• A rabbi might say "Somebody screwed up!" which means so what? I don't care! i.e., Still No answer! 5 different unrelated contradicting nonanswers to the same question.

Faith is to believe without evidence.
Blind faith is to believe in spite of evidence of the opposite.
Science is to question and examine everything and to observe evidence. This is why science and faith will never agree.  

The religious often state you can't question God or question what made God. This is the opposite of the scientific principles. You can never have a scientific discussion based on You can’t ask specific questions!

The bible old and new testaments, as well as the Quran, are full of flat wrong scientific facts. For hundreds of years, apologists have been trying so hard to modify the texts to agree with the modern scientific events and discoveries, but they always fail.

Religions usually explain the unknown by divine intervention and miracles. In science, there are no miracles but there is always an explanation for any phenomenon and if there is none we say we don't know yet.

It is challenging to try to convince me that a fact is not a fact, or to accept wrong statements like;

"the earth is flat."

"the stars will fall on earth" or

"18 million animals fit in a ship for several months."

The justification is always one of the 5 nonsense answers I mentioned above.  If you bring factual evidence, I will be convinced by your point whatever it is. We can talk about any issue one by one.

23 Signs of Lying

The Most dangerous liars are those who believe they are telling the truth.

Here Are 23 Signs of Lying

1-Freez when asked the question 

2-Repeat the question when asked the question

3-Answer the questions with more questions 

4-Laugh it off when asked the question 

5-Avoid answering the question

6-Give Vague answers to the question

7-Exaggerate emotions in response to the question

8-Exaggerate honesty when asked the question

9-Sympathize with you when asked the question 

10-Express Hostility in response to the question 

Facial expressions 

11-Stiff facial expression, 

12-Coughing or frequent Swallowing saliva, 

13-No eye contact or too much Eye contact, 

14-Eye moving side to side, 

15-Eye looking to the top right/left, 

16-Looking down and shaking head, 

17-Smiling with the face, Not the eyes, 

18-Eyes do not get smaller when smiling, 

19-Asymmetrical face expression 

20-Put Hand or palm on the Forehead, Face or Neck, 

21-Scratch forehead, Eyelids, Nose or Earlobe, 

22-Put Fingers in the Mouth, 

23-Biting the Lip. 

Masters Degree in Camel Urology

Masters Degree in Camel Urology
It is really debatable in the Islamic world if camel urine cures diseases because some Muslimes were cured after they drank it according to Sahih Bukhari. There are 12 Confirmed true Hadith about drinking Camel urine as medicine in Sahih Bukhari. You may easily find it here, just search the word "urine" 

https://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/results.phpFor example Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794 :
Narrated by Anas
Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Sahih Bukhari: Read, Study, Search Online

Read Online the English Translation of Sahih Bukhari, one of the most authentic collections of the Islamic Sunnah. Thousands of Hadiths with a search engine...

SAHIH-BUKHARI.COM

Microwave Killed the Stove

Microwave Killed the Stove
Over a million years ago, our ancestors spent an average of 8 hours a day chewing on raw food. “Archaeologists Find Earliest Evidence of Humans Cooking With Fire” by Kenneth Miller, it was recently discovered Homo Erectus was our first ancestor to use fire to cook food. Homo Erectus started cooking after they discovered when food goes through the fire, it tastes better and becomes easier and faster to chew.

Subsequently, Homo Erectus developed smaller jaw, mastication muscles, and smaller teeth which made extra room in the skull for the brain to grow larger. The Jaw-dropping theory of human evolution is suggested by Michael Hopkin’s article, “Did mankind trade chewing power for a bigger brain?” Increased calorie and nutrition intake lead to a massive increase in the size of the human brain and intelligence.

Soon humans went from wood fire to gas stove fire to microwave cooking. When humans spent less time eating and became smarter, they had more time to socialize, communicate and build civilization. In modern life, cooking took a different form especially with the invention of the surface gas stove instead of cooking on fire pits. Every house had a stove for cooking multiple items or dishes at the same time. Cooking was mainly the job of the housewives since men worked and provided.

By the 1970s, most men and women worked and had less time for cooking. In the mid-1970s, the microwave became a very popular house appliance, stated Amanda Davis in her Perspective “A History of the Microwave Oven”. It was an evolutionary appliance for fast cooking and heating. The microwave almost replaced the stove, like the stove replaced cooking by pit fire. The microwave uses electricity generated heat waves which cooks food instantaneously and is able to prepare a prepackaged or homemade meal in 1-5 minutes instead of over 1 hour. It has become an essential cooking device for busy families with both parents working.

I think the microwave helped individuals to achieve independence from each other. A teenager can leave his family to live alone since he can prepare his or her meals in minutes instead of depending on his mother’s cooking. A person can live in a tiny apartment with almost no kitchen and still prepares his meals using just a bowl, a spoon, and a microwave. In the past, a major section of the house had to be a big enough kitchen to contain a big cooking stove and a lot of kitchen utilities. Now there is almost no more need for such space or to spend money to buy such pieces of equipment.

The microwave had an impact on the development of the society and the independence of its individuals. It provided the convenience of preparing food extremely easier and faster which saved more time for people to work, live, and socialize. However, it may have had a slightly negative effect on the society’s structure since too much independence may lead to less bonding and weakening of family ties.

Works Cited Davis, Amanda. “A History of the Microwave Oven.” the institute.ieee.org. IEEE. 2 May 2016. Web. 15 Sep. 2017. Hopkin, Michael. “Jaw-dropping theory of human evolution: Did mankind trade chewing power for a bigger brain?” nature.com. Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature., 25 Mar. 2004. Web. 15 Sep. 2017. Miller, Kenneth. “Archaeologists Find Earliest Evidence of Humans Cooking With Fire.” discovermagazine.com. Kalmbach Publishing CO. 17 Dec. 2013. Web. 15 Sep. 2017.

A Discussion With A Muslim About What If Las Vegas Shooter Were A Muslim?!

A Discussion With A Muslim About What If Las Vegas Shooter Were A Muslim?!
If Only Stephen Paddock Were a #Muslim https://t.co/kP2f9U2t2o#VegasShooting #Terrorist #EndGunViolence

Opinion | If Only Stephen Paddock Were a Muslim

What happens when the killer’s country of origin is us?

NYTIMES.COM|BY THOMAS FRIEDMAN

See more from Thomas Friedman.

Comments

 me:  

What a stupid remark?! I am sick and tired of Muslim apologists taking the opportunity of domestic terror or mass shooting to point fingers or defend Muslim terrorists. They are basically claiming  Muslim terrorists are not treated equally! So unfair!

What is the purpose of this comparison? I find it very absurd and bizarre If this is to defend Muslim terrorists. Simply, because Muslim terrorists are not psychotic but followers of a belief of ethnic cleansing of the Jews, Christians, Homosexuals, and non-Muslims until Islam conquers the world. They follow verses in the Quran, Hadith, and Sahih El Bokhari. So they have a very good reason to kill.
On the other hand, when someone goes on a killing spree for no good reason, he is a psychotic person.RemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManage And I apologize if I sounded too pissed off cause I am 😒ManageManageRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveManageManage

ManageManageRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemove
RemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManagethe literal application of verses from the Bible was done by the entirety of Christianity, not just the extremist fringe. Should we now hold all Chrisitians accountable? I went to Catholic Elementary and High School and know Christinaty better than the majority of Christians, especially the Evangelical Trump supporters😉
RemoveRemovebut again that is not a justification for Islamic terror. I do not agree with many things the Church did 500 years ago and now too but at least they are not blowing up people. The problem we are facing and discussing now is Islamic Terror, not the Crusades. we may talk about the Crusade later :)ManageManage

RemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageManageManageRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemovRemovRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveAnd in response to your reply about extreamest Christians in the US committing domestic terror, I am not very clear of some examples. Are you talking about Las Vegas shooting? :)ManageManagego further back in history, just maybe 100 years, and then go forward stepwise through various events, not just exclusive to one people, and see if vast numbers of aggrieved resulted, and then forward to present day, take an assessment of ALL current worldwide conflicts/disputes and you should see the light. 😊RemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageManageManageRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageon the contrary, I suggested you go back at least 100 years and the go forward to evaluate ALL events in order to trace the causes of current day conflicts/problems. Without doing that, have you really done a proper exam? You need to do a complete exam before you embark on diagnosis. 😉RemoveRemoveManageManagesorry about the typos 🙄ManageManageRemoveRemoveI have brought you several historical, what I think is logical and I can bring you numerous textual evidence to support my proposal. 
Sorry, but you have not brought up a single logical, textual, or historical specific point except for general ideas of; There are Christian Terrorists too, Muslim terrorists are treated poorly compared to Christian terrorists, Leviticus is bad too, all verses are open to interpretations, history has reasons for Islamic aggravation, this all sound like justifications and did not point to a cause of a problem or a solutionManageManageManageManageRemoveRemoveManageManageManageManageRemoveRemoveyour words "Global Islamic Terror" clearly indicates your bias because you did not even bother to delineate between the extremists/radicals and those who are not. 😉RemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageManageManageRemoveRemove

RemovemeAt which historical time do you exactly want to draw the line and decide to whom does Jerusalem belong?ManagManag

RemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageManageManageagain, I brought up Israel as a response to your question about discussing a specific issue and now you are spinning it to seem as if 8 gave that as an example to support my point. 😉RemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemove

ManageManage

ManageManageManageManageRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveRemoveManageManageRemoveRemoveRemoveRemove You are right, accurate statistical analysis can't be done on a small sample. Let us say hypothetically you are right about your point which is maybe Christian terror is more than Islamic terror! What does YOUR statistics predict worldwide? A higher chance to get killed by a Christian fanatic, Buddhist fanatic, Jane fanatic or a Muslim fanatic? I believe there is actually a higher chance for you more than me to get killed in Pakistan by a Muslim fanatic because your views are different from his, you are a moderate and or you are considered a hypocrite by the fundamentalist Muslims according to the verses and Hadith. In spite of targetting non-Muslims, bombing the Churches and groups of people, the truth is; More Muslims than Christians are killed by Muslim terrorists in the world. How is this for a statistic? I hope you agree with that :)ManageManageRemoveRemoveIs that a yes you are at higher risk from Muslim terrorist than all others? Thank you. I have enjoyed your discussion very much 😊

He  

as I read it, he makes some key points: 1. if this guy were a Muslim terrorist, the response to this would be more about let's do something about it, rather than, let's not talk about it and let's mourn. 2. The NRA, which was a decent organization for some time has now essentially become a terrorist organization that funds legislators to look the other way and not address gun violence. 3. Legislators need to pass common-sense gun laws and get a spine 4. Get involved.

me

 Agree with you about the gun laws.Americans especially republicans are crazy about guns even possessing war guns. It is crazy to Allow just anyone to own such weapons capable of mass killing

he

 As for your comments that this defends terrorists who happen to be Muslims-I don't see that... In addition, it sounds like (possibly) have had horrible experiences being Coptic Christian in Egypt and were treated horribly by the Muslims that you were exposed to. I'm sorry if you had that experience. The majority of Muslims that I have come across are not that way. Certainly there are some orthodox Muslims who aren't necessarily violent but have their biases against people of other faiths (as do people of other faiths)... but by and large, that is not my experience from my own faith and many other Muslims I have come across... (and same holds true for my friends who are of other faiths, whether Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc).

he

  part of the issue is that the NRA is soooo good at messaging and strategy (in a very evil way) and they target (no pun) people who are more willing to listen... esp when they have legislators in their pockets and can prey on people's fears.

me

 I still can't see what difference would it make in gun laws if the killer was Muslim? After 2 fanatic Muslims shot their coworkers in San Bernardino, the laws still did not change. The solution for the Republicans is more guns and the Democrats can't-do anything about it

me

he

Muslim terrorists = calls to action (of various types). Non-Muslim terrorist = calls to mourning and/or blame mental health.

me

Does that mean Muslim terrorists are not treated fairly by the American society compared to their non-Muslim fellas!? A terrorist is a terrorist, I still don't see the difference and which one should have a better justification? And what kind of a better reaction should Americans have for a domestic terrorist compared to a Muslim one? Of course, Muslims are very nice and good people except for the fanatics who want to kill everyone and die doing it, as well as Americans, are kind people except for the racists, antisocial, and psychos. I think as an American it is kind of selfish to use a horrible disaster like this as an opportunity to defend, sympathize with, or complain about the unfair reaction to a Muslim terrorist vs American terrorist

him

 your comment is based on the assumption that all terrorists are "treated" or "considered" equally heinous. That is definitely NOT the case. Additionally, the acts of a Muslim terrorist is often extended to include Muslims in general, vilifying all instead of the fringe fanatic segments of the Muslim population. Let's be honest about that. Domestic terrorists are "lone wolves" and "mentally ill" with no extension into the general population. I am not complaining about anything, just illustrating the hypocrisy of the narrative, especially since we are several orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of domestic terrorists.

me

I didn't expect u to be awake this late. are you on call LOL... I see you your point and in the right world, there should not be a generalization or discrimination based on religion, opinion, ethnicity or sex. I can elaborate on that since I was a Christian who lived in Egypt. But I also see you are still emphasizing on "all terrorists are not treated equally". This is because "all Terrorists are NOT created Equal", that is in the eye of any society, which is my point. You are calling it hypocrisy and sounding like you sympathize with the Islamic terrorist just because you share a different version of Islam with him. If a similar situation happens in an Islamic country there will be bloodshed. In Egypt, there is an Arabic Islamic Proverb which says "I and my brother against my cousin and I and my cousin against the foreigner" This apply everywhere in the world. The domestic terrorist is at home with psychotic motive unexpected and hard to be identified. So, society looks at it as an exception, accident, disease, craziness. The other terrorist has common clear motive and considered from outside. Especially when the terrorist clearly states his motive and goal like we see with the Islamic State against the western society. So all terrors, Islamic State, Russan in the cold war or Nazi in WWII are looked at as identifiable hateful genocidal enemy with a common organized clear cause. When a pilot crashes an airplane because he was depressed or psychotic, it is an accident when an airplane is deliberately hijacked to crash, it is an act of terror.

he

I am not on call, I develop software for various Dental and Healthcare markets. I have developers in different time zones and often work late. I don't share a version of Islam with terrorists. They are not practicing Islam. Same as the Buddhist terrorists murdering Rohingya in Myanmar are not practicing Buddhism. The hypocrisy lies in the attribution of ideology to one group of terrorists while attribution of psychiatry to the other. With respect to motives, they range from geopolitical, to tribal, to religious. Rarely is it clear just one of those. One man's true motive is another man's false narrative. As for your plane crash example, if a pilot is psychotic and crashes a plane, how is that any different than a psychotic hijacker doing the same?

me

 Great points, You are claiming that Islamic terrorist hijackers are psychiatric same as a psychotic pilot but that is not true in the eyes of millions of believers. The definition of Delusion as you know is a falls belief or an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. Watch carefully for generally accepted as reality or rational argument. When you have a group of people in the millions who typically accept and believe killing nonMuslims is a favor to god and will be rewarded in heaven and one of them work on it, he is not delusional or psychotic in his society, he is a hero. What you and I consider delusional is what is not accepted in or rational argument according to our norm. But what good is our rational in a society where the majority believes killing is honorable and our rational is heresy? The hijackers are psychotic to you but not psychotic to millions of people and that is the problem

me

 Also, It is very easy to just deny there is a problem by denying the relationship between Islam and the actions of the Islamic State and claim this is not Islam because that is not what I practice or I believe. Many apologists do that. However, the question is what and from where did the Islamic State or the terrorists come up with to justify their actions? It is simply from the verses. Many obviously, practice the peaceful Meccan early verses of Koran when Islam was a minority, rejected and persecuted. It commanded peace, Fasting Ramadan, pray 5 times, give Zakah, Haj El Kaaba, accept Christians and Jews as people of the book, states no force in religion, you have your religion and I have mine, if you kill one person you have killed humanity, God commanded you well with the Christians, Heaven is under the feet of mothers, God is merciful, and so on. Obviously, the Islamic State and the terrorists are practicing different Islam, which is the Medina latter part of Koran after Hijrah. Islam spread in the Arab peninsula by Fatohat, became a powerful majority, and conquered all the tribs including Mecca. During the latter period, you will find a multitude of verses ordering Jihad against the infidels, terrorizing, beheading, burning and crucifying the enemy, taking women captured in war as sex slaves, justifying torturing the infidels because God wants them tortured by your hands, and many more of what the Islamic state, Taliban, El Qaida are doing today. You may say these verses were situational like many says. But the fundamentalists insist, the Jihad verses Abrogate the old peaceful verses because Koran says a new verse abrogates an old verse if they contradict each other. Again, this is not just talking or opinion this is in Islam, Koran, Hadith, Sunnah, Sahih Bokhari which we studied in Arabic in schools in the middle east

he

everything you said above regarding interpretive application of verses has parallels in the books of every major religion. There are verses in Leviticus that will make you cringe. I don't think it is productive playing the typical game of "your book said that" and act as if that of your own faith has not been used by those with bad intentions to influence their followers into action..

me 

Very good and true point, I am impressed you know about Leviticus. I am not playing any game here I am just stating the facts without a need for interpretations and I totally agree with you Leviticus contains horrific descriptions and orders of Massacres, killing men, children, women, even animals and burning villages. I do not believe there is any interpretation for that except it is clearly horrific and sounds like someone used God to commit his war crimes. Do you agree?

she

 when was the last time you heard a Christian shouting verses from Leviticus before the bombing, beheading or plowing into a crowd ??? Just wondering? because there are plenty of people shouting " Allah Akbar" before they do that !!

he

 what does Allahu-Akbar mean? Let's get an accurate definition of that first and we can then go from there.

she

 what difference does it make anyway?! it means God is great or literally God is bigger...I m sorry to disappoint you, but I know Arabic very well, maybe much more than many Who practice Islam from all over the world; I'm Christian Egyptian who was forced to memorize verses from Quran and many of the Ahadith ...

he

great. So are you saying that disciples of other religions have not committed acts of terror in the name of God or in praise of God?

she

 I will rest my case because I think one of the reasons Islamic terrorism is becoming a bigger problem by the day, is the fact that many moderate Muslims are always trying to deny the reality instead of facing it and work on fighting extremism from within ...I suggest to anyone who is interested to look up an article about recent research done in the UK that shows only 1 out of 4 British Muslims will inform the authorities if they knew someone who is involved in terrorism or extremists Islamic groups !!!

he 

here in the USA, extremist Christian groups have committed the vast majority of acts of domestic terrorism. How successful have "moderate" Christians been to stem that violence by fighting that extremism internally?

he

 as I said in my comment above, as long as there are forces and events that create aggrieved people, there will always be zealots willing to exploit the aggrieved in order to advance their own agenda. All we can do is fight against the forces that create vast numbers of aggrieved individuals.

she

please tell me names of extremists Christians here in the US or anywhere who committed mass murder in the name of Christ or for the sake of the Christian Faith in the past 100 years???

he

 please do the Google search I outlined above and you will get all of your answers. Also, search "Anders Brevik".

she

 Brevik committed mass murder in Norway, was anti-Islam and anti-feminism with the Nazi mentality, never declared once that he did what he did for the sake of Christ or to promote Christianity! Sorry but not the same as Islamic extremism. The reality is there are mosques, books, and imams who are condoning the killing of non-Muslims for the sake of Allah...have you ever heard a preacher in a church telling people to bomb and " terrorize" non-Christians???

he

did you-you actually do the search?

she

yes and your claim is false 

she

it is ok, my issue is not with reasonable people like you who can reason and discuss differences respectfully. Be well and let us all do the best we can to make this world a better one ...

  me

the difference here is no Jew is applying Leviticus now. The Church had its phase of literal application of the verses 500 years ago and now its over. The problem we are facing now is Fanatics applying literal Islam Today not Leviticus!

he

me

he

I don't recall ever justifying terrorism. Please cite where I may have done that and I will clarify.

me

 by deflecting the problem to literal bible application

he

 I was responding to your comment on application of verses from the Quran in terms of justifying terrorism. That is NOT my justification of terrorism.

me

Ok I am sorry, what did you mean by The mention of Leviticus (which I agree with you about) in response to the verses of Jihad?

he

I was giving you an example of verses from other Holy scriptures that can contain heinous acts used to manipulate human behavior.

me

and?

he

And that such verses are not exclusive to any religion.

me

and how is this of any value or construction to the problem we are facing now. How is this going to help us deal with Islamic terror or the contradiction of interpretation of Islam among Muslims?

he

 it is not reasonable to expect that you can reason with zealots using religion to advance their own agenda. There is nothing we can do to stop such mind control of the masses. It will not stop until there is an end to the geopolitical forces and events that provide ample followers for these maniacs to manipulate.

me

Back to Leviticus, IT sounds like you are saying the interpretation of the verses is very hard in any religion. I think it is just pointing fingers toward a very bad problem from 5000 years ago that we are not dealing with today as an explanation for today's problem. Now, talking about geopolitical forces, do you mean the invasion of Iraq?? and the Military superiority of the US?

he

By geopolitical, I mean throughout the world, not just the Middle East. When you create large numbers of aggrieved people through policies, events, etc, you have essentially created a scenario ripe for ideological exploitation.

me

So again, are you talking about the invasion of a Muslim country Like Iraq is a cause for inflamed feelings of some Muslims against the west leading to terrorism? 

he

he

I have no idea what was behind the Las Vegas shooting. Just Google "White Nationalist Terrorism", "Extremist Christian Terrorism", "FBI statistics for domestic terrorism" and you will get ample evidence of the ominous problem we face in the USA.

me

Sorry, sometimes I get stuck with some big words like geopolitical .. lol. Let us go back to history then. If you are talking about the Geopolitical dominance of America over the world including the Islamic world or invading Iraq, I don't think that this is the aggravating factor. Simply because the Muslim Brotherhood Movement which demonizes the West and is the source of most radical teaching was founded in Egypt in 1928, way before Iraq was a country! Before WWII and before America had any rule in Policing the world. Furthermore, the Saudis which is the home for the Islamic Laws were and still are best friends with America because of the financial benefits of selling oil. The conflict with Israel and the Jews is from the beginning of Islam. In the modern time, it has reignited from 1917 when the Arab king of Hijaz promised a part of Palestine back to Israel with an agreement with the Belfour British. Was the aggregator the Crusade 1000 years ago? The aggregators are not new they are from the beginning of history and just brought back and let up on demand at every opportunity.

he

you are repeatedly extracting from history what you need to support your position instead of considering these events as an intertwined continuum. Passing judgement on who has a right to be aggrieved and for what reason was not the point I made. I am saying that any zealot has an opportunity to use idealogy to manipulate the minds of the aggrieved. Irrespective of who creates the grievance and why, this is human nature, as you have indicated by quoting history for thousands of years. As long as we all stick to our camps, and refuse to consider the position of others, this cycle will continue.

me

I am not defending Christianity at all here but What does Christian terrorist mean?? when a terrorist is Christian, it does not mean it is a Christian terror. Most people in the US are Christian and subsequently, most psychos, criminals, and crazies will happen to be Christian too. what did Christianity this guy spread? Did he shout THIS IS FOR CHRISTIANITY CONVERT OR DIE JESUS IS GREAT????? NO! On the other hand, every Islamic Terrorist attack in the world has been declared by the doers to be for Allah, Islam, ISIS, and Allahu Akbar. Incidences from Christian terrorism are a minute fraction of the incidences from Islamic terror compared to the numbers. It is probably a term we use to balance and dilute Islamic terror to sound politically correct. Again you are using a bad example of crazy Christians to dilute a bad but much bigger example of crazy Muslims. It is like having an elephant in the room but pointing at how much space a mouse is taking!

me

you asked me to quote history and I am not picking what I like in history, these are just examples of the origins of the hostility on both sides including the unjustified barbaric Christian Crusade. Ok, don't be so general and give me a specific historical aggravating event that you want to talk about?

he

do the search I suggested and read about why some of the domestic acts of terrorism occurred. It is the ideology behind it that matters. You should not have to defend Christianity since these domestic terrorists are not true Christians. That is the point you still don't get and one that I made very early on in this discussion.

he

I am a big picture thinker and don't want to bias my thinking by specifically focusing on one event. Much like differential diagnosis, if you focus on one specific symptom, you will end up with the wrong diagnosis.

me

BUT you have focused on no events at all and no differential or specific diagnosis. No cure if there is no diagnosis

he

me

When I mention several symptoms and historical events leading to a specific diagnosis, you said I am biased and picked what suites my agenda, when I ask for specifics, you say I need to focus on the big picture and the differential diagnosis. We can go back a 100 or a 1000 years if you like and talk about specifics or general picture if you like too. But my diagnosis is always evidence-based, that is what I learned at Mount Sinai Internal Medicine Residency lol. And that is what I apply in my history and science research. Evidence and Facts and that is how I manage to get many people angry with me, Christians, Muslims, Jews, even Buddhists

me

he

it is clear from your questions about Extremist Christian terrorism in this country that you don't have all of the evidence. Do you really think a Facebook post is a suitable forum for an exhaustive discussion of every fact related to existing conflicts today? I can't even get you to agree on generalities, let alone specifics.

me

 No, we cant accept or reject the hypophysis without discussing specifics, details, and evidence. How can I accept or reject a general idea without talking about specifics or evidence? I am open to accept or reject if there is evidence for either. 

me

 I am not defending or denying Christian Terror, either it is the elephant or the mouse in the room. How is it an answer to the discussion about global Islamic terror?

he

was the original topic the magnitude of terrorism associated with any particular group? That would require a much deeper statistical analysis and would require all to either accept or deny idealogoical support in order to validate the statistical criteria upon which you claim one is greater than the other.

me

Who?! .. LOL OK, I GAVE UP

he

it is clear that you did not understand, or are being willfully ignorant about the points I made because you restated those points incorrectly by painting them with your own subjective color.

he

he

your objective is to show which radical interpretation of religion is a greater threat globally. What criteria would you use to measure that?

me

 I think global means thousands of similar events happen in many countries all over the world within a period of time because of the same reason

me

and the criteria to measure that is Numbers

he

which numbers?

he

you want analyze specific events in order to relate them to global terrorism and a specific ideology responsible for it. OK. So if we discussed the establishment of Israel based on an ancient claim to the land promised by God himself as opposed to borders being drawn by global powers in 1947, how will that prove your point regarding global terrorism?

me

-Yes, Israel was established forcefully in 1947. 
-But it was promised to the Jews in 1917 by agreement with the king of Hijaz. 
In summary,
-In 1948 the Arabs refused to accept or negotiate and lost a war to Israel and the country became larger and established. 
-In 1956 Israel occupied Suez in retaliation and won another war against Egypt and the Arabs. 
-In 1967 again the Arabs lead by President Nasser of Egypt arrogantly threatened to erase Israel off the map. Israel attacked first and took the Sinai peninsula (1/3 the area of Egypt), the Golan heights, and the West Bank. -In 1978, Sadat Carter and Begin signed a treaty in Camp Davis, made peace, Egypt took back Sinai, and there has been no war between the two since.  
Go backward in history; 
-Salah El Din took Jerusalem from the Crusades in the 12th century. 
-The Crusades took Jerusalem from the Muslims in the 11th century. 
-The Muslims took Jerusalem from the Romans in the 7th century or so. 
-The Romans took Jerusalem from the Jews before the first century BC.  
-The Jews came back to Jerusalem around 538 BC after the Babylonian captivaton.
-The Baylonians took Jerusalem from the Jews around 598 BC.
 -The Jews took Jerusalem from the Canaanites after the exodus of Egypt after they killed them and burned their cities. 

When exactly do you want to draw the line in history to decide to whom Jerusalem belongs?

he

so how did your long dissertation about the establishment of Israel contribute to proving the threat of global terrorism? Considering these issues individually is hardly "global".

me

aren't you trying to say terrorism is local, not global and is because of the establishment of Israel?

he

 no.

me

My dissertation about the establishment of Israel was a response to you wanting to specifically talk about Israel.

he

he

please answer my question about which numbers you will use to measure global terrorism threat?

he

then define is it global terrorism of all types fueled by various idealogy or just one?

me

Talking about Numbers. Let us not use a website that is biased. Here is a random Wikipedia page for the terror attacks in 2017 only. I did not specify to look for Islamic ones just terrorist in general including Christian. You check the numbers and decide for your self how many Islamic and loan wolf Islamic attacks compared to all the others combined. you may use any search. It is almost unbelievable to deny the facts https://en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_terrorist_incidents...

List of terrorist incidents in January 2017 - Wikipedia

This is a timeline of terrorist attacks which took place in January 2017, including attacks by violent non-state actors for political, religious, or ideological motives.

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

me

Again, Terrorism is considered global when one specific ideology is the common denominator for the great majority of the terror attacks all over the world

he

please share compiled statistics for global terror attacks grouped by idealogy.

he

why post statistics for 2017. Let's go global for 100 years. Let's get a good sampling.

me

 haha. You are very funny. 2017 would be the most accurate for today's problems not 100 years ago. OK, it seems you did not like the statistics of 2017. which year do you want? 16, 15,14,13,.....09/11/2001?.. I am concerned about today. However, let us go back to history 100 or 1000 years ago AGAIN and find out what came first, the egg or the chicken!

he

you are misunderstanding. I said compiled statistics in order to understand historical trends and geopolitical events influencing those trends. Get the whole picture of global terrorism instead a small snapshot.

he

accurate statistical analysis can't be done on a small sample.

me

You are right, accurate statistical analysis can't be done on a small sample. Let us say hypothetically you are right about your point which is maybe Christian terror is more than Islamic terror! What does YOUR statistics predict worldwide? A higher chance to get killed by a Christian fanatic, Buddhist fanatic, Jane fanatic or a Muslim fanatic? I believe there is actually a higher chance for you more than me to get killed in Pakistan by a Muslim fanatic because your views are different from his, you are a moderate and or you are considered a hypocrite by the fundamentalist Muslims according to the verses and Hadith. In spite of targetting non-Muslims, bombing the Churches and groups of people, the truth is; More Muslims than Christians are killed by Muslim terrorists in the world. How is this for a statistic? I hope you agree with that 

he

you are correct that Muslims are more likely to be victims of extremist terrorism perpetrated by other "Muslims". That fact, and where you reside, are very important when you consider YOUR statistical chance of being a victim. 😉 I will leave it at that for now.

me
OK