The Religion Discussion

[achillies]

I have "Catholic" on my birth certificate. I didnt convert. I stopped following.

I didnt ask for your opinion!
I asked you why it was right or more right.
The only place it says "God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus" is in the bible itself. "The bible is right because it says so in the bible" is not a valid reason. That is circular logic.

Q: Why is this car faster than that car?

A: Cause the engine in this car has a turbocharger

Circular Logic?

Where would you want to find the answer when you compare one thing to the other, outside of the the things compared?

This is the thinking, your thinking that I am questioning, where would you look for that answer to your own question?

Are you gonna skip over this also

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I have "Catholic" on my birth certificate. I didnt convert. I stopped following.

I didnt ask for your opinion!
I asked you why it was right or more right.
The only place it says "God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus" is in the bible itself. "The bible is right because it says so in the bible" is not a valid reason. That is circular logic.

Q: Why is this car faster than that car?

A: Cause the engine in this car has a turbocharger

Circular Logic?

Where would you want to find the answer when you compare one thing to the other, outside of the the things compared?

This is the thinking, your thinking that I am questioning, where would you look for that answer to your own question?

Are you gonna skip over this also

so you're saying that Christianity is just better than other religions?

[achillies]

I have "Catholic" on my birth certificate. I didnt convert. I stopped following.

I didnt ask for your opinion!
I asked you why it was right or more right.
The only place it says "God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus" is in the bible itself. "The bible is right because it says so in the bible" is not a valid reason. That is circular logic.

Q: Why is this car faster than that car?

A: Cause the engine in this car has a turbocharger

Circular Logic?

Where would you want to find the answer when you compare one thing to the other, outside of the the things compared?

This is the thinking, your thinking that I am questioning, where would you look for that answer to your own question?

Are you gonna skip over this also

so you're saying that Christianity is just better than other religions?

??:

I issue a challenge to you, point me to the part of my post where I said that.

What I am saying is, your powers of reasoning are faulty, and it changes to align itself with all your preconceived notions, a theme that I picked up from you from the discussion on aliens, your use of the term 'human action atrocities' and now your use of the term 'circular logic' and again you have failed to address anything I said in my post.

But yet you ask others to be open minded, are you?

But at least Habit7 now knows exactly what you would have liked him to say.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ are you angry because I am not agreeing with you? Or because you don't have a direct answer.

I asked what makes your religion right and another wrong. Why is Christianity right and Hindusim wrong?

You then propose

Q: Why is this car faster than that car?

A: Cause the engine in this car has a turbocharger

So I was asking if your reasoning, given your faster car analogy, was that one was just better than the other.
Is it?

Please show me what is wrong with my use of the terms 'human action atrocities' and 'circular logic'.

I am asking a simple question "what makes your religion right and another wrong?"

There is no need to get angry or to accuse me of having faulty reasoning, preconceived notions and failing to address your concerns - just a straightforward answer will do

[Habit7]

I have "Catholic" on my birth certificate. I didnt convert. I stopped following.

So then you weren't a Christian then? If what made you stop following Roman Catholicism?


For the question "What makes the Bible right" is quite a broad one and on the surface can be inherently subjective. Do you mean what makes it right either historically, theologically, epistemologically, scientifically, rationally or even relevantly.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I went to Sunday school, took first communion, never confirmed, went to church, went to Presbyterian and Anglican secondary schools. I was never very religious so there was not much to stop following. I was always fascinated by religion though and why people follow it.

Regarding my question, I doubt you are trying to evade answering it directly so in your own words please give me a summary historically, theologically, epistemologically, scientifically, rationally and even relevantly.

[achillies]

^ are you angry because I am not agreeing with you? Or because you don't have a direct answer.

I asked what makes your religion right and another wrong. Why is Christianity right and Hindusim wrong?

You then propose

Q: Why is this car faster than that car?

A: Cause the engine in this car has a turbocharger

So I was asking if your reasoning, given your faster car analogy, was that one was just better than the other.
Is it?

Please show me what is wrong with my use of the terms 'human action atrocities' and 'circular logic'.

I am asking a simple question "what makes your religion right and another wrong?"

There is no need to get angry or to accuse me of having faulty reasoning, preconceived notions and failing to address your concerns - just a straightforward answer will do

I would ask you to point to the part of the post that would make you think I'm angry, but given that you haven't before, I would not this time

I know what you asked, but I am not addressing that, I am addressing your reasoning, sorry to hurt your feelings but your reasoning, or your application of it is very selective at best.

The analogy was not to address which religion is better, but to address your statement that Habit7 was using circular reasoning. So did I use circular reasoning in determining which car is faster.

The fact is, in your mind, you would like to hear why a person chooses one fairytale over another, because you believe them all to be fairytales, if that statement is wrong, feel free to correct me, but, what is the point of you discussing which religion is better if you have already brought your preconceived notions about all religions, again feel free to correct me, tell us you have no preconceived notions on religion, lol.

And if it would make you feel better, imagine it was Beyoncé saying these words to you over a candlelight dinner.


As for your use of the term Human action atrocities, I already addressed that, let me quote that for you:

ack David Eller, an anthropologist of culture, violence, and religion who himself is an atheist, claims: "As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence." and "Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identicall. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules - not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary

"When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them."

It was very easy for you to separate the science from the scientist, and also quick to use the term Human action atrocities, but where was this separation when religion came into play, where was the term Human action atrocities?

Is it that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but when religion comes into play, guns nor people does the killing, is the killer now religion?

Religious war or human action atrocities, what say you?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ that is not true. I do not consider them to be fairytales at all. I think they are religious books and practices that people have faith in. For someone to have faith in one over the other, I have learned that people usually use their experiences to make the decision of which to choose.

However I've seen people post in this thread with bold conviction and I am asking for the reasons why one is better than the other.

You just beat up for the past few pages over my questions just because you felt I had bad intentions.

that's like someone being questioned about their whereabouts replies with "wha you want to kno my business for?!" just because they feel they are being cornered into being accused. Just answer the question!

Also "the bible is right because it says so in the bible" is circular reasoning.
The Bible, Qur'an, Gita, Torah all claim they alone are right and the others are deceptive. This is the nature of religious texts.
I am not sure what you were trying to do with your turbocharger analogy.

I just want to know what makes one right and the others deceptive.
I think you can all understand my question without nitpicking at words and intentions.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

As for your use of the term Human action atrocities, I already addressed that, let me quote that for you:

ack David Eller, an anthropologist of culture, violence, and religion who himself is an atheist, claims: "As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence." and "Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identicall. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules - not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary

"When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them."

It was very easy for you to separate the science from the scientist, and also quick to use the term Human action atrocities, but where was this separation when religion came into play, where was the term Human action atrocities?

Is it that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but when religion comes into play, guns nor people does the killing, is the killer now religion?

Religious war or human action atrocities, what say you?

again, I don't know why you need to start off with a big stick arguing

you said

Can you count how many scientists died because of their experiments? can you tell me of any atrocities that we committed in the name of science?

You sit here and try to benefit off of these people's work, having total disrespect for the lives lost due to science, science is not innocent and some scientists have a moral cloth so dirty, it would make some religious zealots look like angels and some churches like safe houses.

accusing science of terrible atrocities committed in the name of science

I replied stating

religious wars have caused far more death during mankind's history.
Up till today we see the senseless killing of Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Pakistan

purely on numbers I don't think the number of scientists who have died and the number of dead due to the atrocities that we committed in the name of science can amount to the number of people killed in during the Crusades, the wars of religious conquest in the middle ages, the new world and now in the middle east.

I never claimed religion creates violence.
Nor did I say that religion is inherently and irredeemably violent and that it is the essence and source of all violence.
I only said what was quoted above - YOU may have felt that my intention was to say those things - but I never made that claim to you.

[achillies]

^ that is not true. I do not consider them to be fairytales at all. I think they are religious books and practices that people have faith in. For someone to have faith in one over the other, I have learned that people usually use their experiences to make the decision of which to choose.

I've never seen the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy either

the easter bunny and santa claus or the tooth fairy DO exist... in fairy tales, children stories and in the hearts and minds of those who want to believe or who have faith. There is clear evidence of that!

^^^ You don't believe they are fairy tales, you just love comparing them to fairy tales, I understand now

However I've seen people post in this thread with bold conviction and I am asking for the reasons why one is better than the other.

You just beat up for the past few pages over my questions just because you felt I had bad intentions.

I can only argue with logic - sorry.

I stopped posting in reply to you because you are the guy who believes the earth is 6 thousand years old!

religious wars have caused far more death during mankind's history.

There was no 'science bible' that says kill non-believers for example. Humans action atrocities.

Not bad intentions, just out to prove that religion is.... well you alone know what you are trying to prove

that's like someone being questioned about their whereabouts replies with "wha you want to kno my business for?!" just because they feel they are being cornered into being accused. Just answer the question!

Also "the bible is right because it says so in the bible" is circular reasoning.
The Bible, Qur'an, Gita, Torah all claim they alone are right and the others are deceptive. This is the nature of religious texts.
I am not sure what you were trying to do with your turbocharger analogy.

I already explained the reason for the Car analogy, your mind is closed to that though

I just want to know what makes one right and the others deceptive.
I think you can all understand my question without nitpicking at words and intentions.

What you call nit-pick, is what I call "trends"

All the words in quotes are yours, where do you think the trend is leading

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ it's leading to you not answering my question.
I've answered all yours

[achillies]

As for your use of the term Human action atrocities, I already addressed that, let me quote that for you:

ack David Eller, an anthropologist of culture, violence, and religion who himself is an atheist, claims: "As we have insisted previously, religion is not inherently and irredeemably violent; it certainly is not the essence and source of all violence." and "Religion and violence are clearly compatible, but they are not identicall. Violence is one phenomenon in human (and natural existence), religion is another, and it is inevitable that the two would become intertwined. Religion is complex and modular, and violence is one of the modules - not universal, but recurring. As a conceptual and behavioral module, violence is by no means exclusive to religion. There are plenty of other groups, institutions, interests, and ideologies to promote violence. Violence is, therefore, neither essential to nor exclusive to religion. Nor is religious violence all alike... And virtually every form of religious violence has its nonreligious corollary

"When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them."

It was very easy for you to separate the science from the scientist, and also quick to use the term Human action atrocities, but where was this separation when religion came into play, where was the term Human action atrocities?

Is it that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but when religion comes into play, guns nor people does the killing, is the killer now religion?

Religious war or human action atrocities, what say you?

again, I don't know why you need to start off with a big stick arguing

you said

Can you count how many scientists died because of their experiments? can you tell me of any atrocities that we committed in the name of science?

You sit here and try to benefit off of these people's work, having total disrespect for the lives lost due to science, science is not innocent and some scientists have a moral cloth so dirty, it would make some religious zealots look like angels and some churches like safe houses.

accusing science of terrible atrocities committed in the name of science

I replied stating

religious wars have caused far more death during mankind's history.
Up till today we see the senseless killing of Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Pakistan

purely on numbers I don't think the number of scientists who have died and the number of dead due to the atrocities that we committed in the name of science can amount to the number of people killed in during the Crusades, the wars of religious conquest in the middle ages, the new world and now in the middle east.

I never claimed religion creates violence.
Nor did I say that religion is inherently and irredeemably violent and that it is the essence and source of all violence.
I only said what was quoted above - YOU may have felt that my intention was to say those things - but I never made that claim to you.

I am not arguing, I guess you are not comfortable with someone going after your words directly, but they are your words.

I guess Beyonce is not enough

Secondly, You are being disingenuous when you now choose to talk about religious crusades etc, at first, your words were blaming religion for wars and deaths, and this was crystal clear and is evidenced by your very own words There was no 'science bible' that says kill non-believers for example now, your tune is changing
Your words could only have implied one thing, that religious wars are caused by religion and by what people read in religious books, a man having a gun in his hand does not necessarily mean he will use it, hence a man that reads kill non-believers does not mean he will go do it, it is unfortunate that some do, but we can't blame the book, because we never blame the gun.

So that part about what you think I felt was your intention, is not even relevant. because your previous words say differently

Science and Religion have been used by many as tools (still is), as a means to an end, all those posts were attempts at getting that message through, forget about my methods

This site is a PITA to post on from the web

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ YOU talking about relevant?

you took a detour through a 3 page tirade just to say "Science and Religion have been used by many as tools (still is), as a means to an end"?

and I'll still ask why the book says to "kill non-believers".
Even if it was abrogated in later texts, why put it there?
that was rhetorical, cause I don't want you going on a diatribe again just because of that question.

anyway ignore my intention, it is after all my own, why not just answer the question?

[Habit7]

Regarding my question, I doubt you are trying to evade answering it directly so in your own words please give me a summary historically, theologically, epistemologically, scientifically, rationally and even relevantly.

I was hoping you would choose one and I would tackle them one by one, to deal with all aspects is enough to do 3 credit course in a theological college. Check out what Ravi Zacharias summarized http://youtu.be/OjGASRROnMk


But if you are looking for a pie chart and graphs for someone to prove the supernatural then you will always be wanting. With all worldviews you have to investigate the claims and make you best subjective decision. And don't think that you have solace in science, you are still limited by naturalistic explanations that cannot and does not have an answer for origins. As naturalistic explanations cannot answer everything, it is superseded by supernatural explanations. Then the onus on us to sift out the truth claims of supernatural explanations inherent in different religions. One makes their decision, and chooses a religion.

But for those who think themselves non-religious are not. Their religion is one conceived by themselves and their god is themselves and while their holy book is not written, it is a open canon of experience and emotion that ebbs and flows as the tides. They exercise a faith that they are right as oppose to any supernatural deity.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I agree! - but I didn't ask for a philosophy or theology lesson.

how about scientifically and rationally alone then?
Why is your religion right and others wrong?

[Habit7]

Scientifically:

The Shape of the Earth
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in," (Isaiah 40:22, NIV).
This may or may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat.
The Earth is suspended in nothing
"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," (Job. 26:7, NIV).
This is particularly interesting, considering that the cosmology of other cultures at that time did not have the earth suspended in nothing, but rather upon pillars, or people, or animals.
The Stars are Innumerable
"He took him outside and said, 'Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your offspring be,'" (Gen. 15:5, NIV).
The Existence of Valleys in the Seas
"The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from his nostrils," (2 Sam. 22:16, NIV).
The Existence of Springs and Fountains in the Seas
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month -- on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened," (Genesis 7:11, NIV). See also Gen. 8:2; Prov. 8:28.
The Existence of Water Paths (Ocean Currents) in the Seas
"O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! ... When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, ... You made him [man] ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet ... the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas," (Psalm 8:1,3,6,8, NIV).
The Hydrologic Cycle
"He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight," (Job. 26:8, NIV).
"He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind," (Job 36:27-28, NIV)
"The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, NIV).
The Concept of Entropy
"In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded," (Psalm 102:25-26, NIV).
The Nature of Health, Sanitation, and Sickness
The listing for this section is too large for this page, but the scriptural references are Leviticus 12-14.

Rationally:

All world religions have one basic premise, work good works in accordance its moral code and you will attain rewards (most of which are after death).
Christianity of the Bible teaches that we cannot produce good works because they all come from a bad heart. You must the receive the righteousness of God Himself, who came as both man and God, in order for you to be approved by God.

[AdamB]

The (CORRUPTED) Bible rightly ??demonstrates God reconciles man to himself through sacrificial atonement of Jesus. However, the Qur'an pressures man to work to be reconciled to Allah, with the hope that he will unjustly forgive those he chooses.

There you go, saying things about ALLAH of which you have no knowledge!! Allah is the same GOD THE Father before you and Christianity corrupted the GOD concept.

So ALLAH is UNJUST?? But it is not unjust for the Holy Spirit to "choose" whomsoever it wants to enter so that they will accept the hogwash you preach and be saved, yadda, yadda, yadda??

For your information, ALLAH does not deal UNJUSTLY with any of HIS Creation, the blame is not to be put on GOD, it is MAN who CHOOSES his destiny and faith through his own actions.

[AdamB]

Rationally:

All world religions [color=#0000FF](except Christianity)[/color] have one basic premise, work good works in accordance its moral code and you will attain rewards (most of which are after death).
Christianity of the Bible teaches that we cannot produce good works because they all come from a bad heart. You must the receive the righteousness of God Himself, who came as both man and God, in order for you to be approved by God.

Flawed and lacking proof!!

If this is what you call rational, then Duane will be the next Christian on the block...

Why when you do bad / wrong your heart is bad but when you do good the heart is still bad?

Why can't bad deeds be just that bad deeds and good deeds be just good deeds to be weighed or cancel each other out?

It can't only because you are brainwashed...

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!! Being in need is not a quality of ALLAH, you should learn about the correct concept of GOD taught from GOD Himself in the Quran and from HIS Messenger Muhammad!!

You make not a just estimate of GOD!!

[MG Man]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

[AdamB]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

The ONE and ONLY kind who does whatever HE pleases with the PERFECT ATTRIBUTES of KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM AND JUSTICE!!

[metalgear2095]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

Adam doesn't have much sense does he? Similar stuff but the concept of a son sent to die for sins seems a lot better than a messenger. The son was a messenger as well BTW.

[AdamB]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

Adam doesn't have much sense does he? Similar stuff but the concept of a son sent to die for sins seems a lot better than a messenger. The son was a messenger as well BTW.

How could GOD have a son when the son is HIMSELF???

HE sent HIMSELF to die for man's sins?? GOD die?? What kinda GOD is that???

Who doesn't have much sense now?

[MG Man]

not to mention the son f the other god was one of his messengers too.....

[metalgear2095]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

Adam doesn't have much sense does he? Similar stuff but the concept of a son sent to die for sins seems a lot better than a messenger. The son was a messenger as well BTW.

How could GOD have a son when the son is HIMSELF???

HE sent HIMSELF to die for man's sins?? GOD die?? What kinda GOD is that???

Who doesn't have much sense now?

Died and rose again. Conquered death. Your messenger is worm food

[AdamB]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

Adam doesn't have much sense does he? Similar stuff but the concept of a son sent to die for sins seems a lot better than a messenger. The son was a messenger as well BTW.

How could GOD have a son when the son is HIMSELF???

HE sent HIMSELF to die for man's sins?? GOD die?? What kinda GOD is that???

Who doesn't have much sense now?

Do I need to mention that the muslim concept of GOD is that HE is EVER-LIVING...DAH...that means that HE absolutely cannot DIE!!

[AdamB]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

Adam doesn't have much sense does he? Similar stuff but the concept of a son sent to die for sins seems a lot better than a messenger. The son was a messenger as well BTW.

How could GOD have a son when the son is HIMSELF???

HE sent HIMSELF to die for man's sins?? GOD die?? What kinda GOD is that???

Who doesn't have much sense now?

Died and rose again. Conquered death. Your messenger is worm food

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign...

[metalgear2095]

What kinda GOD NEEDS a son? One who has the attribute of INCAPACITY, so much so that HE needs help!!

what kind of god needs a messenger?

Adam doesn't have much sense does he? Similar stuff but the concept of a son sent to die for sins seems a lot better than a messenger. The son was a messenger as well BTW.

How could GOD have a son when the son is HIMSELF???

HE sent HIMSELF to die for man's sins?? GOD die?? What kinda GOD is that???

Who doesn't have much sense now?

Died and rose again. Conquered death. Your messenger is worm food

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign...

Your messenger was a mass murderer and pedophile.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

No need for name calling fellas.

[metalgear2095]

Mohammed is considered a prophet and the ideal man. (Koran 68:4, 33:21)
Mohammed (51) married his favorite child bride Aisha when she was 6. (Bukhari 7:62:88)
Mohammed (54) deflowered the nubile Aisha when she was 9. (Bukhari 7:62:88)
Mohammed ordered all dogs to be killed because of a puppy. (Bukhari 4:54:540) (Kitab Al-Libas wa'l-Zinah) Muslim :: Book 24 : Hadith 5248
Mohammed helped behead (Koran 47:4) 600 - 900 captives in one day.

Mohammed and insults against him and Islam (Koran 9:61-:63, 33:57-:58) require death.
(Koran 33:61)
Mohammed had women killed for insulting him. (Asma bint Marwan, Abu ‘Afak, Kab bin Al-Ashraf)
Mohammed orders anyone leaving Islam to be killed. (Koran 2:217, 4:89) (Bukhari 9.84.57)
Mohammed curses his aunt and uncle to hell. (Koran Chapter 111)
Mohammed was made victorious through terror. (Bukhari 4.52.220)

Mohammed had a woman from Ghamid stoned to death for adultery after weaning her baby. (Kitab Al-Hudud) Book 17 : Hadith 4205 and 4206
Mohammed got 20 percent of all stolen property. (Koran 8:41)
Mohammed was spoken to by the devil. (Koran 17:73-:75, 22:52-:53, 53:19-:26)
Mohammed rode a buraq (winged half-donkey/half mule) to heaven and back meeting Moses. (Koran 17:1) (Bukhari 5:58:227)
Mohammed led 27 battles and ordered 47 others.

Mohammed had over 50 sex slaves and wives. (Koran 4:3, :24, 5:89, 23:5, 33:50, 58:3, 70:30)
Mohammed never had a son. (Koran 33:40 - thus the Sunni and Shia Sects)
Mohammed alone was allowed to have unlimited wives. (Koran 33:50)
Mohammed was ordered by All*h to marry his adopted son's stunning wife. (Koran 33:37)
Mohammed colored his hair. (Red with Henna

[MG Man]

Do I need to mention that the muslim concept of GOD is that HE is EVER-LIVING...DAH...that means that HE absolutely cannot DIE!!

HEE
HEE