Muhammed of Islam

[Cold Bear]

My point is that Christianity as had it's fair share of violence in its past. Islam is a younger religion that has not beyond violence yet... It does stress violence, but saying Islam is more violent religion than others or that Islam is just all about violence is debatable, and I was debating it

[willihen]

My point is that Christianity as had it's fair share of violence in its past. Islam is a younger religion that has not beyond violence yet... It does stress violence, but saying Islam is more violent religion than others or that Islam is just all about violence is debatable, and I was debating it

when will they be beyond violence. Give them 10 more years to get all the suicide bombers out of their system.
one more thing...
cold bear, I love you very very much.

[Cold Bear]

Islam today has more extremist groups and violence in the name of religion than any other.

Not debating that. Key word TODAY. OK,Got you.

Islam was based on Violence and war and continues to thrive on it. By a man Who through all my knowledge was a warlord.

The most important thing to remember is
"dirka dirka jihad jihad mohammed."

Debating this characterization. Muhammad had to use force as a warlord to fight for his belief. Christ had violence inflicted on him because of his belief. To me the difference is the environment these prophets were fighting in. Christ under a empire. Muhammad in the desert where violence and war was considered negotioting.

And no, I'm not saying that they should be given an impressiom they can blow all the shit they want up and not suffer consequences until they get their shit together after 10 years. Not saying that.

[willihen]

Islam today has more extremist groups and violence in the name of religion than any other.

Not debating that. Key word TODAY. Got you.

Islam was based on Violence and war and continues to thrive on it. By a man Who through all my knowledge was a warlord.

The most important thing to remember is
"dirka dirka jihad jihad mohammed."

Debating this characterization. Muhammad had to use force as a warlord to fight for his belief. Christ had violence inflicted on him because of his belief. To me the difference is the environment these prophets were fighting in. Christ under a empire. Muhammad in the desert where violence and war was considered negotioting.

And no, I'm not saying that they should be given an impressiom they can blow all the shit they want up and not suffer consequences until they get their shit together after 10 years. Not saying that.

Jesus was a peaceful man. He turned the other cheek. He was not about violence. And it is what christianity teaches us to strive for.
No violence at all.
Mohammed was no where near the man Jesus was.

Unfortunately we are human. But it is exactly this dogma christians must strive to achieve. But we do a poor job. I know I have.
That is why there is no christian extremist group today going around blowing people up. You cannot use christianity as a means for attacking others. It doesn't work. Neither would using Buddhism and Hinduism.

If you can name one christian group set on destroying others for religious reasons do it. But your not going to find it.
And keep it secular don't involve politics/foreign policy with religion.

[Cold Bear]

If you can name one christian group set on destroying others for religious reasons do it. But your not going to find it.
And keep it secular don't involve politics/foreign policy with religion.

the only outright christian group set on destroying others for religious (along with race) reasons I can think of off the top is the KKK. No, it's not a perfect fit. But put it like this, there is plenty of violence in the world perpetrated by Christian people. Whether it comes from a defined extremist group or not, a dead body is a dead body. They come as missionaries and alot of times leave as murderers. And while we're on the topic of missionaries why is it that it's always a Christian on the train 'spreading the Gospel' in my ear, or on Flatbush trying to shake my hand and stop me, or knocking on my gotdamn door. If I was in my native country, practicing my own shit, and the missionaries kept coming over spreading their 'good word', I would be fuckin heated too.

[willihen]

If you can name one christian group set on destroying others for religious reasons do it. But your not going to find it.
And keep it secular don't involve politics/foreign policy with religion.

the only outright christian group set on destroying others for religious (along with race) reasons I can think of off the top is the KKK. No, it's not a perfect fit. But put it like this, there is plenty of violence in the world perpetrated by Christian people. Whether it comes from a defined extremist group or not, a dead body is a dead body. They come as missionaries and alot of times leave as murderers. And while we're on the topic of missionaries why is it that it's always a Christian on the train 'spreading the Gospel' in my ear, or on Flatbush trying to shake my hand and stop me, or knocking on my gotdamn door. If I was in my native country, practicing my own shit, and the missionaries kept coming over spreading their 'good word', I would be fuckin heated too.

KKK is based on Race. But your right they do discriminate on religion. But they are by No means an extremist Christian group. not a fit like you said

I'm from the South and they are extremely hated by all people. They are underground and are whitetrash. White people don't like them.
I remember my grandmother talking about how secretive KKK were. Because no one would put up with their shit.

And I do hate when people put their beliefs on others. Missionaries should have just stayed in their damn countries. But again you can't put them in the catagory.
Cold bear, I probably am inbred...lol..

[Sentenza]

If you can name one christian group set on destroying others for religious reasons do it. But your not going to find it.
And keep it secular don't involve politics/foreign policy with religion.

Ula, IRA, "Phalange" (fascistic-christian Militia in Lebanon responsible for thousands of killings in palestinian refugee camps), Franco claimed to be a super christian and was backed by the Pope (we all know how many he killed) and some more....

i know you might say this is not today, but today is the era we live in and not the present day.
Politics have always influenced religion and vice versa. What the terrorists are doing is more political than religious if you ask me. They do not aim at insignias of other religions( well yes a few of them do if you mention the destruction of Buddhistic Statues in Bamyian, but they are few) but they aim at certain nations and politicians.
Present day Islam has violent tendencies, but if you consider that spiritual developments need the same amount of time you have to consider that Islam is the youngest religion and is only 1400 years old.
Where were we in the year 1400? Its called the Dark Ages.

And not to forget the powerful nations are killing in the name of money everyday and all over the world. Is that better?

One more thing. I say what i say because in the City i live in we have ca. 350,-400,000 Muslims. Most of them i met in my short lifetime were good people. Hard working, honest, friendly and hospitable. Some bad guys aswell and some narrow minded fanatics.

But my overall experience was good.

Peace

[purplecityhello]

Islam is Peace

a few rotten apples dont spoil the bunch
this is a supposed war on terrorism but it looks more like a war on islam huh?

middle ages all over again

[Cold Bear]

Cold bear, I probably am inbred...lol..

My fault about that comment, dogs. I'm sure your family tree is full and diverse. LOL

Nah, but you have many valid points. And yeah, you are right about there being no real extremist Christian groups, although another 'almost' fit would be the militia groups who are anti-government yet very very religious. Again not a perfect fit. It's all good though willihen.

[willihen]

If you can name one christian group set on destroying others for religious reasons do it. But your not going to find it.
And keep it secular don't involve politics/foreign policy with religion.

Ula, IRA, "Phalange" (fascistic-christian Militia in Lebanon responsible for thousands of killings in palestinian refugee camps), Franco claimed to be a super christian and was backed by the Pope (we all know how many he killed) and some more....

i know you might say this is not today, but today is the era we live in and not the present day.
Politics have always influenced religion and vice versa. What the terrorists are doing is more political than religious if you ask me. They do not aim at insignias of other religions( well yes a few of them do if you mention the destruction of Buddhistic Statues in Bamyian, but they are few) but they aim at certain nations and politicians.
Present day Islam has violent tendencies, but if you consider that spiritual developments need the same amount of time you have to consider that Islam is the youngest religion and is only 1400 years old.
Where were we in the year 1400? Its called the Dark Ages.

And not to forget the powerful nations are killing in the name of money everyday and all over the world. Is that better?

One more thing. I say what i say because in the City i live in we have ca. 350,-400,000 Muslims. Most of them i met in my short lifetime were good people. Hard working, honest, friendly and hospitable. Some bad guys aswell and some narrow minded fanatics.

But my overall experience was good.

Peace

point taken, Sentenza

[willihen]

Cold bear, I probably am inbred...lol..

My fault about that comment, dogs. I'm sure your family tree is full and diverse. LOL

Nah, but you have many valid points. And yeah, you are right about there being no real extremist Christian groups, although another 'almost' fit would be the militia groups who are anti-government yet very very religious. Again not a perfect fit. It's all good though willihen.

Cold Bear,
You and Sentenza have good points. Maybe I should start practicing what I preach and be a little more accepting, "more Christian"
Sorry about the getting heated. I do respect both you guys and enjoy your posts. Sometimes I'm an asshole.
take care

[Sentenza]

you take care aswell.

Getting heated can be good on some issues, it shows that your heart is in the right place!
You are no asshole because of that...

[Cold Bear]

Yeah, I also didn't realize that part of the reason why you snapped earlier is because I had come making the same point a lot of people already said before that. Respect though.

[Sentenza]

To back up some things you said Willihen.....
i used to have a friend who fled from Kabul and told me about the atrocities the Taliban committed, because he witnessed them first hand. Since then my eyes were open about the so called islam they preached. They were torturing and killing mostly other Muslims in the name of a Satanic ideology that every half brained Muslim rejected. They just didnt dare to speak up at that time.
Because evgeryone that spoke up tended to find himself hanging from a tree with no trial.

I was also very steamed about the things i heard they did to the average Afghan.
Same goes with Al Zarquawi, Bin Ladin and Mullah Omar etc.. if i d had the chance to i would like to beat them up and down the block.
But the average turkish fruit seller around my corner has nothing to do with those rejects....

[willihen]

To back up some things you said Willihen.....
i used to have a friend who fled from Kabul and told me about the atrocities the Taliban committed, because he witnessed them first hand. Since then my eyes were open about the so called islam they preached. They were torturing and killing mostly other Muslims in the name of a Satanic ideology that every half brained Muslim rejected. They just didnt dare to speak up at that time.
Because evgeryone that spoke up tended to find himself hanging from a tree with no trial.

I was also very steamed about the things i heard they did to the average Afghan.
Same goes with Al Zarquawi, Bin Ladin and Mullah Omar etc.. if i d had the chance to i would like to beat them up and down the block.
But the average turkish fruit seller around my corner has nothing to do with those rejects....

True. Good Points. Speaking of Turks, I used to have a crush on a Turkish girl... lol.
pretty cute.

[Kemosave]

Violence in Islam, whether in the form of terrorism, or the persecution of Christians and other minorities in the Muslim world, or capital punishment for an individual who turns away from Islam, or death threats on Salman Rushdie for allegedly insulting prophet Muhammad, are not simply some isolated incidents or aberrations from the true and peaceful seriously than at any other time in the past.

Such violence in fact goes to the very roots of Islam as found in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of the prophet of Islam himself. Osama bin Laden quoted some of the very same Qur'anic and hadith passages documented in order to provide religious justification of his actions.

There is a program produced by Frontline and shown on PBS around the country entitled, "The Saudi Time Bomb." At one point in this program we are told about the state sponsored religious education in Saudi Arabia. According to Frontline, "approximately 35% of school studies is devoted to compulsory Saudi religious education." One of these textbooks published in 2000 was a collection of prophet Muhammad's sayings, which was used by middle school students in Saudi Arabia. One lesson is entitled, "The Victory of Muslims Over Jews." According to a tradition from prophet Muhammad, "The last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them so Jews would hide behind rocks and trees. Then the rocks and trees would call: oh, Muslim, oh, servant of God! There is a Jew, behind me, come and kill him." Like a good textbook, the teaching of this saying are summarized in several propositional statements such as:

1. It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world.
2. The Hadith predicts for the Muslims God's victory over the Jews.
3. Jews and Christians are the enemies of Muslim believers. They will never approve of the Muslims, beware of them (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... books.html). Note: In the beginning, Mohammad spake well of Christians and Jews; however, when they didn't deny their faith and convert to Islam he began to speak against them.

So ideas have consequences. It is also very clear for our world that violent ideas have violent consequences. It is clear there is a religious foundation for violence deeply embedded within the very worldview of Islam. This isn't going away. The world needs to take the challenge of Islam seriously. Peace.

[Sentenza]

Man.....Kemo, i reallly do respect you because of your knowledge....
But i as a christiaj see Islam from a different point of View.
I am Protestant Christian to set the record straight.
First of all, the bible didnt speak bad of Muslims cause they didnt exist at that time.
We can be sure that the Bible and all Christian Prophets would have if Muslims would have existed at that time. Its a theory, but out of my experience with other christians, yes i am sure.
There are countless Old Testamentric passages in the Bible that would promote any kind of random violence if you would want to.
And Christians already used them in history(French Religion Wars-end of 16th Century) and will in future.
Because no religion is safe from blinded fools.
I can tell you countless passages in the Quran AND the Bible that promote peace or justice. I rellay can, dont take it for a joke
What Osama Bin Laden is doing is nothing else than a Cardinal Richelieu or a Pope Pius did with Christianity. Twisting its teachings into a very bad way. And you cant deny that there are christians doin it the same way still today. Do you?

[Kemosave]

I'll get back at ya with a proper reply Sentenza. Thank you for sharing your beliefs with me on this issue. Peace to you.

[Sentenza]

on the 9 year old thing, im not saying nothin cuase i got a lotta respect fo him and not gon start sayin bad stuff bout him

so you got respect for a guy who mighta been tappin a 9 year old, no biggie

this aint funny, but I it is not any doubt that he took Aiisha at 6 years old. He even has the approval of her father, because Muhammed was so respected by many Arabs after they won many battles. I just wonder if this was normal back then or if it was ever normal in any society to take a 6 year old as a wife.

Well not 6 year old, but from 7-12, yes:

And yet it is the case that in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage. If some scholars are correct, Geoffrey Chaucer even celebrated the arrival of the little queen in England, in the formal but funny balade, "To Rosemond," remarking her "chekes round," clowning for the child, like "a pike, walwed in galantyne," possibly inducing thereby merry giggles and yet another pension. [....] If it is indeed addressed to Isabel in this way and for this purpose, then it could be argued that Chaucer was just one more profiteer from this bargain, joining in the happy welcome of the little girl to her marriage bed.

The difference between these responses to the prospect of child marriage is one of the clearest markers of the Otherness of the Middle Ages from the 20th century. The very idea of child marriage -- the use of a child as a bargaining chip, a counter in the game of family politics and inheritance -- is as abhorrent to us as it was apparently completely non-exceptionable in the 14th century. A social practice which entered the written record in the 12th century, but which seems to have had roots in the barbaric past, that extended from the royal abattoirs down to the lives of neighboring fishmongers and shop-keepers in medieval London, yet that seems to have received little more than passing notice in canon law beyond exhortation to limit it to age seven and ensure mutual consent of the parties, is now regarded with horror and disgust by decent- minded people from every point along the political and social spectrum. But still it is not even indexed in most contemporary discussions of medieval marriage and family life, from Barbara Hanawalt to James Brundage, GL Brooke to Frances & Joseph Giese, Ian MacFarlane to Georges Duby. It is not exactly passed over in their texts, when you read closely; but it is definitely subordinated in discussion to other matters of canon law and social history.
The sole work devoted to child marriage in or near our area is F.J.Furnivall's edition of 16th century child divorce depositions from the Bishop's Court in Chester, 1561-66 (EETS, 1897), and it is of course open to the possible argument that post-Reformation practice diverged significantly from that of medieval society (itself admittedly sundered by geographical and class differences in this area as in any other).


By "child" in this context is meant a male or female human being above the age of 7 -- for either gender -- and below the age of 14 for males, and 12 for females. This follows medieval canon law, in recognizing these as the limits of infancy and puberty, below which the infant could not give meaningful consent, and above which the person was no longer a child.

http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm

[Kemosave]

This aint funny, but I it is not any doubt that he took Aiisha at 6 years old.

--> The evidence I've seen says he took her at about 9 years old.

He even has the approval of her father, because Muhammed was so respected by many Arabs after they won many battles. I just wonder if this was normal back then or if it was ever normal in any society to take a 6 year old as a wife.

--> It was also accepted in certain pagan societies to toss their kids into the fire and sacrifice them on alters to false gods to improve crops. Your history is right and if you are just explaining it that is fine; however, if you are trying to justify it you won't be able too. I'm ready to debate you on the issue that old men sleeping with children is a very bad unhealthy thing to do on many different levels.

And yet it is the case that in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage. If some scholars are correct, Geoffrey Chaucer even celebrated the arrival of the little queen in England, in the formal but funny balade, "To Rosemond," remarking her "chekes round," clowning for the child, like "a pike, walwed in galantyne," possibly inducing thereby merry giggles and yet another pension. [....] If it is indeed addressed to Isabel in this way and for this purpose, then it could be argued that Chaucer was just one more profiteer from this bargain, joining in the happy welcome of the little girl to her marriage bed.

--> Yes he was a lecher too. You would think grown men could have found a better way to solve their problems than to have sex with children. At least he didn't start his own religion and mislead many into it while he was having intercourse with the child.

The difference between these responses to the prospect of child marriage is one of the clearest markers of the Otherness of the Middle Ages from the 20th century. The very idea of child marriage -- the use of a child as a bargaining chip, a counter in the game of family politics and inheritance -- is as abhorrent to us as it was apparently completely non-exceptionable in the 14th century. A social practice which entered the written record in the 12th century, but which seems to have had roots in the barbaric past, that extended from the royal abattoirs down to the lives of neighboring fishmongers and shop-keepers in medieval London, yet that seems to have received little more than passing notice in canon law beyond exhortation to limit it to age seven and ensure mutual consent of the parties, is now regarded with horror and disgust by decent- minded people from every point along the political and social spectrum. But still it is not even indexed in most contemporary discussions of medieval marriage and family life, from Barbara Hanawalt to James Brundage, GL Brooke to Frances & Joseph Giese, Ian MacFarlane to Georges Duby. It is not exactly passed over in their texts, when you read closely; but it is definitely subordinated in discussion to other matters of canon law and social history.

The sole work devoted to child marriage in or near our area is F.J.Furnivall's edition of 16th century child divorce depositions from the Bishop's Court in Chester, 1561-66 (EETS, 1897), and it is of course open to the possible argument that post-Reformation practice diverged significantly from that of medieval society (itself admittedly sundered by geographical and class differences in this area as in any other).

By "child" in this context is meant a male or female human being above the age of 7 -- for either gender -- and below the age of 14 for males, and 12 for females. This follows medieval canon law, in recognizing these as the limits of infancy and puberty, below which the infant could not give meaningful consent, and above which the person was no longer a child.

http://www.thedigitalfolklife.org/childmarriage.htm

--> Yes your definitions and history look correct. The point is that none of these characters represented themselves as pure, holy, and the last of God's prophets on earth. Now quite a few cults have including the wolf in sheep's clothing at Waco that did those things and Joseph Smith (i.e. Mormonism). It would appear that Mohammed, based on his behavior, could be lumped right in there with those two based on strong historical evidence.

[Anonymous20]

My view of this is that it is immoral to take a child into marriage, 6, 9, or 11 years old, and during any period, ancient to modern. I was inquiring wether this was common in Arabia. I know there are many examples of older men taking little girls are their wives, but was it widely practiced.?

I did read that Aiisha was 9, but I read that the father gave his daughter to Muhammed when she was 6, and the marriage was solidified when she was 9. At any rate it seems foul to me.

Also in Islam you are allowed 4 wives (which is also, in my view an immoral act), but Muhammed had more than 4 wives at once. How do Muslims remedy this apparent contridiction? Did he get special priveleges?

Just imagine if Jesus had a 9 year old wife when he was 33 years old and that he was a polygamist. We would never hear the end of the criticisms of Jesus. It would completely turn Christianity upside down. There are also critics trying to link Jesus to fornication through unconfirmed writings. I dont beleive it.

Why have we not questioned the actions of Muhammed? and be just as critical?

[DC]

Muhammed done many things that were immoral including mudering, raping and destuction of churches and forcefully converted christians to Islam.

[Sentenza]

My view of this is that it is immoral to take a child into marriage, 6, 9, or 11 years old, and during any period, ancient to modern. I was inquiring wether this was common in Arabia. I know there are many examples of older men taking little girls are their wives, but was it widely practiced.?

I did read that Aiisha was 9, but I read that the father gave his daughter to Muhammed when she was 6, and the marriage was solidified when she was 9. At any rate it seems foul to me.

Also in Islam you are allowed 4 wives (which is also, in my view an immoral act), but Muhammed had more than 4 wives at once. How do Muslims remedy this apparent contridiction? Did he get special priveleges?

Just imagine if Jesus had a 9 year old wife when he was 33 years old and that he was a polygamist. We would never hear the end of the criticisms of Jesus. It would completely turn Christianity upside down. There are also critics trying to link Jesus to fornication through unconfirmed writings. I dont beleive it.

Why have we not questioned the actions of Muhammed? and be just as critical?

Indeed it is immoral to take a young girl as a wife. I was just stating that it was not uncommon in these times all around the world.
At that time, before and later aswell.
In my opinion the most important thing is how followers of a certain religion conceived the teachings of their Prophet and Jesus (very good) teachings sometimes seem useless to me considering how many christians twisted them into a justification for random violence (take the KKK for example, they claimed to be real christians).
There were also Christians trying to do the best, i know that.
But same applies for Muslims and Muhammed also did say very good and moral things.
Both religions equal each other in the amount of mislead followers they have.
I just oppose judging a whole religion just because of the evils some people did. This includes every religion even though i am a christian myself.

Peace

[ratt]

you can't plant corn and wait for peanuts to grow. islam, christendom, judaism, buddaism, taoism, shinto, and the tribal religions of the world have all sown seeds of hatred, racism, slavery, atrocities, world wars, murder, rape, genocide, idolatry, homosexuality to name a few. you know a tree by the fruit it produces, likewise, you know religion by the people it produces. it is obvious that these religions are like rotten trees producing worthless fruit. you know what happens to rotten trees( matthew 3:10). a good tree cannot produce worthless fruit(matthew 7:18). unless these religions are blameless, they will be destoyed in god's due time.(rev.17:16,17).

[Sentenza]

I have to correct my post. I do not include every religion cause some religions are just tooo stupid (like Satanism) and do no good at all to people.

[ratt]

I have to correct my post. I do not include every religion cause some religions are just tooo stupid (like Satanism) and do no good at all to people.

any religious organization that has been responsible for crimes against humanity are pawns of satan masquerading as god's earthly representatives. making themselves enemies of jehovah and worshippers of satan.( 2 corithians 11:13-15)

[Kemosave]

Your attempt to lump the rightous with the unrightous ratt is purely wishful thinking on your part. God knows those who are his and who are not. I see your strategy of "if I can find one or more unrightous acts for an organization then I can classify every member that ever belonged to it [including their children] as unrightous" and it simply is a false assertion. It doesn't stand up. It is easily and logically dismantled.

[ratt]

sure their are honest hearted people in corrupt religions. that is why god urges them to get out from among them or they will share their sins and their fate. revelations 18:4

[Kemosave]

God does want people to leave false religious systems and come into a personal relationship with him. However, Revelations 18:4 doesn't mean exactly what you are representing it to. It is very specifically talking about a future Roman Catholic Church (when it was written). Biblical scholars interpret Revelations 18:4 as a call to believers to leave the Roman Cathloic Church. It shows God's restraint in handing out justice to Rome, so that His faithful have a chance to avoid the punishment. It is not referring to, for example, Bible believing Christians that are His who have already left the church and complied forming their own Bible believing spirit-filled assemblies.

Now you may not realize that the mystery Babylon discussed there brought into the church many of the old practices of the old Babylon that had been cursed of God. In Ancient Babloyn there was the worship of Nimrod and his mother by the people. Nimrod was a mighty hunter opposed to God. His death and the resulting pagan worship and practices surrounding it such as egg coloring, rabbit worship, decorating trees, gift-giving, drunken orgies, etc.. and had very specific ritual meaning in the worship of Pagan Babylon's Nimrod and his mother.

The Madonna and child with the halo about them existed 1,000 years before Jesus was born and represented Nimrod and his mother.

Now today, Christians celebrate the birth of Christ at Christmas and do not worship Nimrod and his mother when taking a day off from work to color eggs and play with their children. This ritualisitic worship to the false deities of ancient Babylon and drunken sexual orgies is certainly NOT present. And that is why putting up a tree to celebrate the birth of Christ and spend time with your family singing worship songs to God is perfectly fine.

But understand that the Church of Rome brought so many pagan rituals into the church, such as the worship of Mary for example, that God promised to judge the organization.

The seven hills surrounding Rome, it's all there. You can read it for yourself. But please, don't start extrapolating that which isn't there.

Also, there are a number of parallels in the Old Testament to the call to come out of an evil location. Some of these are a victorious release from slavery, others are a call to escape the evil and resulting punishment, and both fit this instance. In Isaiah 48:20 and 52:11, God calls the overcoming believers out of Babylon to go back home again. In Genesis 12:1, God calls Abram to come out of his homeland to the land promised to him and his descendants. In Jeremiah 50:8 and 51:6, God warns the faithful to come out from the evil land and escape the punishment intended for the unfaithful. In Genesis 19:15-17, the angels call, then literally drag Lot and his family out of sinful Sodom before it is destroyed. In Numbers 16:23-26, Moses calls the Israelites out of the camps of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram before God causes the earth to swallow them up for their evil.

[ratt]

roman catholic church is only apart of babylon. babylon encompasses all false religions that have adopted and embraced unbiblical doctrines like the trinity, immortality of the soul and literal hellfire which can be traced to ancient babylon in the days of nimrod after the flood.

[Kemosave]

Many arguments have been made regarding the (future) Babylon found in Revelations. Some have said Rome, some say false religions systems, and some actually say America.

But occam's razor (which is often overused and used when and where it shouldn't be) actually can be used here to show a much more pragmatic example. They are now rebuilding Babylon which has been desolate since before 141BC. Madonna actually did a fundraiser concert there several years ago to raise money for the effort. It might just be that Revelations is talking about a literal Babylon that is currently being rebuilt.

[Scriptz]

you fucking christians started a fucking crusade in the name of jesus and you call our religion fucked up and u think christians aint racist white fucking supremicist based there ideology on fucking christianity you killed blacks,arabs and god knows who else in the name of it and will get mad when itz our turn to get back at you fucking animals fuck christians for killin the innocient in the name of there "RELIGION"jihad nigga