Evil Genius

Seriously the poeple that are just in this thread to write "to long!11 +1" and not read the post . Dont bother posting in this thread. I like the way this thread is going and dont want it to be fucked up by unneccesary spam.

Try reading this thread backwards...

Started out as a serious discussion about faith, religion, science, and existence... ends up talking about some guy burning some gal's sweet spot.

Edit: Reserving a spot in case I suddenly become opinionated.

Edit2: I have a general idea of what everyone was discussing up until now, but I am lost as to where we are. We started talking about homosexuals equating extinction, then somehow dragged in realism as apposed to faith. Suddenly did a loop and started talking about how religion shouldn't be compared to science. The posts were fine and interesting, but I don't see where we are trying to go.

Before this thread goes out from it's off-topic-ness (I know, it's weird), I'd like to comment on Killfile's post. I'm not going to talk about how your comment regarding Kether's "intellectual integrity" pissed me off (it's not my battle after all), but I think you should know that it did. I don't really need to state reasons for that and I'd say it's pretty clear why.

Regarding the rest of your post, well, sure, faith and science have always been polar opposites and devoting yourself completely to one means that, most of the time, you'll have to leave the other one behind. I'm not arguing about that and I think you made your case very clear. However, don't be so quick to assume that these two should never be mixed or that such a mixture would be pointless.

It might've been easier to keep science and religion separate up to a hundred years ago I'd say, when lots of phenomena had no explanation whatsoever and people needed to given reasons and explanations about them. Things have changed a lot in the last hundred years and we've been able to learn a lot about how this universe works, for example, or about how elements react on an atomic level and why. It's not perfect and I'm sure it's just a small percentage of all the knowledge that is out there, but it's somewhat solid and something you can at least try to prove.

Religion doesn't have this. Do you think it's easy for an educated man to believe in Adam and Eve? The theory of evolution might not make him change his mind if he truly has faith or is blinded by it, but it could easily do that to other people. That's why certain scientists try to prove statements in the Bible with facts, like Jesus having truly existed or what he would've looked like (again, I'm basing of all this on catholicism, though I wouldn't see any major differences in this regard), while others try to prove how some events in the Bible can easily be explained through logic, like how each of the plagues of Egypt can technically be possible given the right circumstances.

It's not black and white anymore and it's not so simple to make people believe in something based on nothing but ancient scriptures. In fact, and this is purely my opinion, it's these scriptures and each religion's respective temple's adherence to them that is hurting what faith should be about. Instead of trying to go against the search for explanations that is science, the church should try to embrace it.

I completely agree with killfile. Science and Faith is mutually exclusive. Science, no matter how advanced it becomes, will never be able to disprove faith. That is because the method of science does not touch the realms of faith. I hope what i just said makes some sense to you guys.

There is one very important fact that I'd like to point out: Religion is not Faith. Religion is only a method for developing faith. It disciplines the mind into a state where they can start believing; hence the relative comparison to the sheep and the shepard. True faith is something that is from the inner self. For example, the Catholic religion teaches many things such as morality and the afterlife. The old testaments give many "evidence" of god's existence in forms of miracles and phenomenons. But those things only detract from true faith. If one is to search for faith, he/she might use a life time to study the bible and still not find it, for faith is not in the bible. Likewise, if a non-religious man simply has the purity to believe without ANY evidence of a god, he already has faith. That is why there are many religions out there and only few that are truely faithful.

Einstein was one of brightest scientists in history. Yet he was also a believer of god. The more he learned of the universe, the more he believed in god. This is an example of faith and science being mutually exclusive.

People should not mix up religion with faith. Faith is something much greater than organizations and factions. Moreover, people should not denounce faith with science because that is not what it's about. We live in the age of science. Many people simply lost the ability to have faith because their whole mindset is geared towards the scientific method.

I hope i don't offend anyone here, that is not my intention. I simply believe that there are many who are mixed up with such ideas and I hope that I give a valid argument.

That's why certain scientists try to prove statements in the Bible with facts, like Jesus having truly existed or what he would've looked like (again, I'm basing of all this on Catholicism, though I wouldn't see any major differences in this regard), while others try to prove how some events in the Bible can easily be explained through logic, like how each of the plagues of Egypt can technically be possible given the right circumstances.

But what you're talking about here IS NOT a mixture of science and faith. The Bible is a curious document, containing elements of doctrine and dogma as well as history and anthropology. Using science to explore phenomena described in the Bible is still science. Science isn't identified by it's divorce from religion, but rather by its tendency to answer questions through falsifiable hypotheses.

Faith does not feature these hypotheses.

Proving that Jesus lived, that the Red Sea could part due to tidal forces, and that Jesus was likely crucified through the wrists rather than palms are all examples of scientific studies based upon the Bible as an historic record.

But the assertions that Jesus was the Son of God, that the Lord spoke to Moses and brought them to the Red Sea, or that Christ died and rose from the death are matters of faith. No scientific test can ever verify them or falsify them.

This is what it means for science and faith to be mutually exclusive. All I'm saying is that, when you start looking at the natural world and looking within it to find confirmation of your God's existence, your faith is only as strong as the scientific hypotheses you put forward - which, by definition, aren't very strong.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and this was not my intent. But the separation of science and faith is something that I feel very strongly about because the encroachment of faith upon science is starting to have some very serious consequences for kids in the United States.

I fear a theocracy in my country, if not de jure than de facto. The corruption of science with religion is among the first steps towards the realization that fear.

Killfile: Would this have anything to do with Intelligent Design or the refusal to teach Evolution in Kansas?

First of all, sorry about what follows, and for my poor english, and for myself too. Yes, it can be called a (good or bad) piece of science-fiction. And also yes, I'm completely crazy and agnostic.

You guys have all common and very well developed concepts of faith. You all are calling it by a name "faith". I've found that faith (with other names too) is something common in almost ALL religions, even pagan ones. With other names, or highly but just conceptually definitions, all the world is calling faith in many many different ways, but referring to the same thing. So for now, I'll use that word, and remember, I'll not refer to faith as what you know for faith, I'll use it just as a word to resemble something in common, but with a different approach.

Now, I always try to speak with examples, but it can be more large than what I'm planning for this post, so I'll try something different here, try to read twice and understand very deeply what I'm about to say, if you have the time, of course.

Let's go on facts first. As Kêthêrîc wrote in one of his posts, lots of precise physic phenomena needs to be -exact- to make (this) life possible. I can resume all of those in a simple result of one big constant, which is gravity. It may be hard to understand, but imagine that all mass of the universe matter didn't had that relative property or (incorrectly named) force called gravity. None of this would be possible. If you all want to find the responsible of humankind, blame gravity. I can go deeper on this, but is common sense that like the tangents of a spiral that match the lines of outer rectangles in a drawing, "Chaos, sometimes, somewhere, gets straight", it wouldn't be called chaos if that didn't happened.

Next, the evolved world is using today faith as an excuse to believe in something. This isn't wrong, but what faith is, in other cultures, and was ages ago, a slightly different thing. Some examples vary from witches to oriental cultures in where the people used "their faith" to make certain things happen.

As of today, I've experimented myself, and others that I know too (which beliefs differ strongly of what I believe), this kind of "power" that others blamed to a sort of faith (in theirs respective definitions). I saw people cured of (science)deadly conditions, just by making good use of this force they call faith. And also I saw people greatly injured by the "bad" use of this "kind of" power.

It doesn't happen usually that if you believe that something will go wrong, it does go wrong, and if you believe the opposite, it goes well? That's is what I call an example of "untrained" faith. Faith, for me, and the way I *saw* faith -working- is more like "power", power to do something that cannot be done following rules or cannot be possible from a (nowadays) scientific point view.

But what about gravity then? It happens that I do think that the big bang theory is right, but also is the big crunch. It happens that I find very simple the existence of the universe. If I had to put this in understandable words, the whole universe is like God. It always existed, and by his own force (of gravity) created all these galaxies and planets. The gravity of all the matter (and that matter of course) of the universe concentrated in only one point lend it to explode (by simple unstability) and the same gravity will make the whole universe contract and concentrate in that same point again, and again it will explode creating (again) the universe. Speaking of, the only other factor needed for this to happen, is the exact amount of matter in the universe, combined with gravity, makes this big bang happen.

Now after that "metaphysical" view of faith, or power, where does these things converge?. In tiny bits. Living things among lot of different types of matter, are made also, of energy. Call them electrons for now, but going deeper also, it's still matter, of the same universe, matter that these living animals cells control to process other matter, to keep living, to keep renewing themselves, to keep the energy flowing.

My reasoning is that more complex intelligence, as they evolve, may also be able to control this process, not only at the cells or chemical or molecular level, but also at the "thinking about it" level, the Brain level. What I do think of our "faith power" (I still haven't found the right name, sorry ;+) is that it is our "untrained", "neanderthal", and "grotesque" form of -control- over energy in our own universe.

Even each religion, cult, or anything related to faith, may be some way of training our "faith". So mighty power in trying to make something happen, from way many people, may lend (another of my -words-) miracles to happen. This is why I find that religions aren't that bad, if theirs objectives are only to train and empower your faith.

It happens too, that having faith or not having it, in my reasoning, can be good or bad (depends on your point of view) at the time of death. I believe that someone with (somehow) better trained faith can have an afterlife, but someone without faith at all (or without that power trained enough) can't have -any- afterlife. Somehow like what Killfile said almost at the end of his post about Pascale's Gambit.

Now the following can -surely- be called science fiction.

It's all about imagination (a good old way to exercise faith maybe? controlling energy with your mind to make images get to your "visual processing unit" in your brain? sorry, back ).

Imagine that when you die, the energy that your cells where processing and your mind trying to control is out of the body, free of any bounds or chains to anything. But you in life managed to (actually barely) control this kind of energy, now all of you left is -that-.
Imagine that with good control of it, you can become something else in the afterlife (only limit is your imagination here). Now (for the bad side) imagine that without control, without trained faith, when you die, your energy just disperses and comes back to where it came from (the universe?). This is what I think of Heaven (only limit is your imagination) and Hell (disperses around).

To finalize this explanation, I'll just add that this reasoning about life itself came from science and faith (this time the way u all know both of these). And transmuted, more or less, in what I just wrote. Also something about faith is true (again depending on your imagination) that's the only way to "salvation" ;+).

Again, sorry for the big post, It may be my lack of english that sometimes I can't find the right words and switch to some fallbacks.

me wrote:An argument without facts is a worthless argument

Killfile wrote:A worthless argument? We're arguing about the metaphysical here. By definition there are no facts. The entire thread is conjecture, supposition, and theorization. There are no facts here. By your own logic the thread itself is worthless.

I was referring to the statement in your second post of how you proved us all wrong. You didn't prove anything, but then if you had actually read the post, you would have figured that out.

Killfile wrote:So I expect your most recent post to be your last on this thread -- at least if you intend to maintain any semblance of intellectual integrity.

heh, sure. You are just repeating the same crap i already stated in my posts. Here is an example:

me wrote: Like i said before, religion is based in faith, and not being able to prove anything, and science doesn't really know enough to discredit anything religion is based on. This subject will always be at a stand still. But its fun to rehash every once in a while.

Killfile wrote:You contaminate your faith with science in an attempt to justify it in a scientific world.

This is just bullshit. Who are you to tell me that?
1. I simply was throwing out scientific facts for just that reason. FACTS. Tell me in my post where i said, "this is why god is real."

2. Even if i was trying to justify faith with science, what is wrong with that? To each his own, and if you don't like it tough shit. I can't stand people who preach bullshit about how it should be their way.

3. You attack my intelligence twice. But really, you haven't even understood my posts, and the only reason you chose me to go after was because of this.

killfile wrote:The corruption of science with religion is among the first steps towards the realization that fear.

You call my faith weak because i stated some scientific facts about living conditions.

It amazes me that you think you have "outsmarted me" with your bullshit posts. You have babbled nothing but the same bullshit, and thrown in some "if you want to maintain any shred of intelleligence, you better stop posting," crap in there. The only worthy point you have made is that science and religion are separate. I agree with you there.

killfile wrote:That exclusionary principle extends beyond what you belive though - if you want to retain any shread of intelectual honesty.

killfile wrote: at least if you intend to maintain any semblance of intellectual integrity.

killfile wrote:I'm sorry if I offended anyone, and this was not my intent.

I'll bet. By the way, it's spelled believe, shred, and intellectual.

By the way paya, nice stuff. An interesting theory on afterlife, and I agree with you on some things.

I think you just broke the Wyrm record!

Note -- What follows are a series of direct statements to Ketheric. If you don't personally give a crap about what I have to say to Ketheric, kindly skip down to the ********s later on in this post.

Kêthêrîc -- If you're done being a wallflower and chasing the worm record (not my words, but appropriate nonetheless) then lets get down to it.

1 - I'm not addressing my posts to you, but to the thread at large. If you say something that I think supports my argument or detracts from it - I may address that statement. (This, it would seem, is likely to be the exception to that rule)

Five Min Edit: I was going to leave it at that, but then I read over your post again and it get me even more annoyed.

Kêthêrîc -- You attack my intelligence twice. But really, you haven't even understood my posts, and the only reason you chose me to go after was because of this.

It astounds me that someone as obviously well informed as yourself can really think that an open conversation on the Internet between a dozen people or more in really just a series of individuals replying to your posts and not taking notice of each other. It amazes me that you're so wrapped up in your own self-indulgent fantasy world in which you are the intellectual center of the Universe that you're unable to comprehend a reality in which I hadn't even taken notice of your previous posts.

There are nearly 20 pages of posts on this topic now and I am a latecomer to this discussion. Did I read all of them? Yes. Did I take notes, catalog, cross reference, and memorize all of them? No. I'm sure I'm repeating some of your ideas. Then again, I'm reasonably certain that individuals smarter than both of us came up with all of those ideas before we did.

You are one of many respondents in this discussion -- and until you decided to post a diatribe against my contributions thus far, I hadn't even noticed that you were a serious part of any continuing thread here.

End Edit

2 - I don't personally care if you try to prove or disprove the existence of God or if you DID try to prove or disprove it. My statements to that regard are addressed to an audience at large, not you specifically. I've got bigger fish to fry.

Tell me in my post where i said, "this is why god is real."

Right here --

I was not using science to validate my own belief in god, just trying to point out facts to others that say "show me evidence that god exists."

3 - I'm a bit of a newbie (only 12 - 13 now posts to my name) while you seem to have a bit more experience (188). For someone with so much experience, you seem utterly unawares of the contextual use of smilies.

4 - My jabs about intellectual integrity and how you should stop posting in particular sought to highlight the inherent conflict in your statements. I'm abundantly aware of what it is that you're trying to say - but that's not what you ARE saying. By pointing out this conflict (and the absurdity of it) perhaps I can help you to understand my point of view.

5 - Being a spelling troll is a lot like violating Godwins law. If all you've got left to contribute is what you picked up in your 5th grade spelling class then you're better off sitting back and waiting for something better to come to you.

******************************************************

Getting on with the regular thread:

Yes, this has a lot to do with Kansas, Intelligent Design, and Evolution. It's all very well and good if you want to grow up to be a minister, a mechanic, or even an electrical engineer -- but if you want to do anything with your life that even vaguely involves biology you've gotta know Evolution. Refusal to teach it, or even the use of the taxpayer's money and the student's time to waste time on pseudo-scientific religious claptrap is a catastrophe.

Kêthêrîc wrote:Oh come on, don't avoid conflict, thats what this whole thread is about

Chill baby, you brought this on yourself.

I've taken the time to split this thread from the original topic because of the amount of people involved, and how it is no where near talking about a 15 year old's cooter being burned by a 22 year old's butter left in the microwave for 8 minutes.

Feel free to continue, just remember... name calling & personal remarks == the BanHammer!

Femto wrote:It's not black and white anymore and it's not so simple to make people believe in something based on nothing but ancient scriptures. In fact, and this is purely my opinion, it's these scriptures and each religion's respective temple's adherence to them that is hurting what faith should be about. Instead of trying to go against the search for explanations that is science, the church should try to embrace it.

we agree!

To2fPic wrote:Einstein was one of brightest scientists in history. Yet he was also a believer of god. The more he learned of the universe, the more he believed in god. This is an example of faith and science being mutually exclusive.

okay, i know correlations dont really prove anything, but if the more Einstein learned about the universe, the more it made him believe in god, thats not mutually exclusive...would his faith have developed if he didnt study the universe?

The_Paya wrote:his idea about afterlife.

I was thinking of how that could relate to haunted house . im gonna add a skylight just in case so my spirit can escape

Skullkracker wrote:

I think you just broke the Wyrm record!

no wyrms was more solid writing, much of it pointless (much like killfiles posts )

hrmm didnt really contribute awhole lot but atleast i kept it to one post

Killfile wrote:It astounds me that someone as obviously well informed as yourself can really think that an open conversation on the Internet between a dozen people or more in really just a series of individuals replying to your posts and not taking notice of each other.

I know there are others contributing, your posts about me not having any intelligence because i don't see things your way are what pissed me off.
Also your general posts about people "contaminating their faith" is pure crap. It is just a general attack.

Killfile wrote:There are nearly 20 pages of posts on this topic now and I am a latecomer to this discussion. Did I read all of them? Yes. Did I take notes, catalog, cross reference, and memorize all of them? No. I'm sure I'm repeating some of your ideas. Then again, I'm reasonably certain that individuals smarter than both of us came up with all of those ideas before we did.

True.

me wrote:Tell me in my post where i said, "this is why god is real."

Right here --

Quote:
I was not using science to validate my own belief in god, just trying to point out facts to others that say "show me evidence that god exists."

These are two different things completely, read closely. The first is refering that i am not using science to validate my own beliefs in a god. The second is saying that i posted scientific facts in reply to those saying, "show me proof that god exists."

Killfile wrote:Being a spelling troll is a lot like violating Godwins law. If all you've got left to contribute is what you picked up in your 5th grade spelling class then you're better off sitting back and waiting for something better to come to you.

Kind of like how if all you contribute is insulting people's intelligence, you also have nothing. I just find it amusing that you insulted my intelligence, yet spelled things wrong.

As for the rest of this, I'm done with arguing with you.

To Psi: Sorry, I am passionate about what i argue about, but I don't recall insulting anyone until it came down to this. I want people to express their beliefs, but not in a way that is a direct attack to others.

First off, I didn't intend to insult anyone's intelligence. What I assume you to mean when you say I did that was when I wrote

I'm not avoiding conflict, I'm pointing out that you're all wrong

Maybe I'm confused, but the convention I'm familiar with tends to regard this symbol ( ) as one that translates "I say this in jest." If you don't read it that way or you don't understand my sarcasm... well... I can't help you.

Since I obviously need to be more verbose in my claims, let me take this statement and expand upon it.

I was not using science to validate my own belief in god, just trying to point out facts to others that say "show me evidence that god exists."

When you point out facts to others that say "show me evidence that god exists" you implicitly state that you think, or are willing to support the argument that God exists. Moreover, by providing those facts in response to that question, you implicitly demonstrate that you believe that those facts support the existence of god. In short, you are saying - these facts demonstrate that god exists.

That may not have been your intent - but text is an imperfect medium, and to those of us on the other end of the wire, we are forced to make certain assumptions about what it is you write. The conclusions I drew are, in my opinion, the only logical ones I can draw from your statements.

If you'd like to continue this discussion about what you did or didn't say and what you did or didn't mean, I'd be happy to over private messages. That said, our private back and forth is detracting from the overall point of this thread and I for one will not continue it in a public forum beyond this.

Kêthêrîc wrote:To Psi: Sorry, I am passionate about what i argue about, but I don't recall insulting anyone until it came down to this. I want people to express their beliefs, but not in a way that is a direct attack to others.

It's cool brotha, you are passionate, yes, but passions will loose you an argument. Having been on a several debate teams, the key is being able to argue your point of view dispassionately thus allowing youself to keep your cool on a subject and argue objectively.

As for you and Killfile, I think you two are dancing around the bush and never coming eye to eye with where you want to take the conversation. The two of you like to argue, that is plain as day.

I have to side with Killfile on his argument, only because I know what he is trying to get out. I have a hard time trying to figure out what exactly you are arguing for or against. How can anyone offer proof of God's existance or in-existance other than to say 'take it on faith'. Science isn't meant to be employed like that and I find it disturbing that people use Science to argue either way, for or against. Science SHOULD not be used in that matter, it is a tool to be used to help for the good of humanity.

Very personal note: Let me rot in hell with Ghandi, we have better things to do than kill for beliefs.

MrFelony wrote:

The_Paya wrote:his idea about afterlife.

I was thinking of how that could relate to haunted house . im gonna add a skylight just in case so my spirit can escape

That whole post is actually an Idea of the Universe, God, Faith, and Life itself, of course involving afterlife or death also.
And, by what you wrote, you managed to make good use of your imagination, while thinking about it.

MrFelony wrote:

Skullkracker wrote:

I think you just broke the Wyrm record!

no wyrms was more solid writing, much of it pointless (much like killfiles posts )

Yeap, my english sucks when it comes to non-technical talking ;+).

psi29a wrote:
It's cool brotha,

psi29a wrote:
Chill baby

Ok who are you? lol

Buzkashi wrote:

psi29a wrote:
It's cool brotha,

psi29a wrote:
Chill baby

Ok who are you? lol

Come man, bling bling baby... bling bling. Aight.. I see how it is dog. Its cool.

And on that note, I'll end my "Be Cool" imitation.

paya i meant he had more average words per line, not a better comprehension of the english language . and your english is fine if not better than some native speakers . and i just saw be cool, a FUNNY movie, also get shorty was pretty funny as well.

Buzkashi wrote:Ok who are you, and what have you done with our psi?

Corrected for great +1:kekeke: justice.

Buzkashi wrote:Ok who are you, and what have you done with our psi?

Alright, might as well tell you guys the truth.

I edited psi's posts.

Killfile: I can kind of see where you are going. It wasn't my intent to really validate god through science, I was trying to be factual with people who only see facts. It's hard to explain therefore it might come out confusing. If someone only looks at evidence, and disregards beliefs, then the way i try to explain to them is by using facts in the real world. Appologies if i came at you harshly, but it seemed like some of your points were made specifically to me.

**Very personal note: Let me rot in hell with Ghandi, we have better things to do than kill for beliefs.

I agree with you there.

Now that I got some arguing out of the way, I hope this thread moves in a different direction. I want to know why you guys and gals believe in what you do, and what made you get there? I'll post some later, but i don't have enough time now.

Damn I hate these discussions. I never know if I should believe or not. Somebody did make the universe, has to be. But where is he now?

But most religions are bs. The only thing I don't know is which. Also people being prophets like jesus is crap too, perhaps not. I respect jesus b/c he died for his people, but him being a child of god?(.... I thought we were all children of god?) ... anyways not likely. And Maria being a virgin? ... don't make me laugh, jesus had older brothers (Check the bible).

And moslims fighting in the name of Allah? omg, the Koran even forbids that.

Be careful what you believe in.

Devil_Dante wrote:And Maria being a virgin? ... don't make me laugh, jesus had older brothers (Check the bible).

And moslims fighting in the name of Allah? omg, the Koran even forbids that.

Be careful what you believe in.

Just to make my mark hee again: it is quite pointless that Jesus had brothers. Jesus was firstborn and that is what is important. The father of the rest is Joseph and that's the end of this part.

I don't know much about the Koran (philosophy teacher claims it being of similar stories as the Bible and a bore, but it is said that in it's original language it's a beautyful piece of literature), but as I remember all the self sacrafice is about that the ones diing in a holy battle got to heaven...even on the basis that not every war is a holy one: this sucks IMO!

The last statement is very important...of all those religions many are whack, not really religions but a set of superstitions, and about the rest: only one of them can be true...(and I guess it is easy to guess which one I find true)...and the rest deception

Playing devil's advocate here...

Devil_Dante wrote:Damn I hate these discussions. I never know if I should believe or not. Somebody did make the universe, has to be. But where is he now?

Why did someone have to make the Universe? Why are you more willing to believe in a supernatural man in the sky who has always and will always exist who decided one day "I'm gonna make me a cosmos" than you are willing to buy into the idea that maybe the Universe is a natural phenomena or simply IS. I know it's more comforting to think of it as being created because it is, after all, really huge and poorly understood -- but that doesn't mean we HAVE to have a creator, just that it's more convenient.

Devil_Dante wrote:And Maria being a virgin? ... don't make me laugh, Jesus had older brothers (Check the bible).

There I'm reasonably sure you're wrong. I've tossed through the New Testament (the Gospels in some detail) and haven't found any evidence of an older brother to Christ. We do have archaeological evidence of Jesus having YOUNGER brothers, but that's another thing entirely.

A stronger argument would be that Jesus isn't the first historical figure to claim a virgin birth (or rather, to have one claimed for him). Virgin Birth was common throughout the ancient world as an origin story for individuals of great import -- kings and the like.

BTW - The closest I can get to brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Bible is Matthew 13:55-56 Linked here
http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?sea ... version=9;

Devil_Dante wrote:And Muslims fighting in the name of Allah? omg, the Koran even forbids that.

Well no it doesn't. The Koran is all for war. The word Jihad even occurs in the Koran. The Koran does specifically mention that Jews and Christians are "people of the book" and are afforded special status in the Muslim faith.

The Koran on the rules of war
When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her armour.
Thus shall you do. Had Allah willed, He could Himself have punished them; but He has ordained it thus that He might test you, the one by the other.
As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish.

The Koran on other People of the Book
Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book [Bible], except with those among them who do evil. Say: ŒWe believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one